That said, USvMatlock says that the consent of a present co-tenant is sufficient, and some other case says “that’s true unless the absent co-tenant has *expressly* refused consent.” I think that would apply in these cases.

HOWEVER, anyone who suspects that there might be contraband in their home would be absolutely insane to allow a warrantless search unless they had secured immunity. Doesn’t mean they’ll know that or have the nerve to refuse. “Voluntary consent to a warrantless search” is not likely to be quite as voluntary as voluntarily going to the corner store for a candybar.

That’s irrelevant. It is the parent’s property, not the child’s person, that is being searched. Thus the parent can waive their own 4th amendment right if they wish.

It says nothing about a child not having rights..

That is entirely up to the particular authority and their laws, but the search is itself completely legal per the Constitution as the property owner is waiving their 4th Amenedment rights.

That is what I am requesting in the previous post.

If you are asserting that they do own said bedoroom, please cite a case that supports that assertion.

The person giving consent is indeed the property owner, which is is the parent as the property is the owned or leased by the parent.

Per your article:

“Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms.”

Now we are back to square 1: you have to prove the contention that children have co-property ownership rights with their parents.

A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search

So the parents can waive their child’s 4th amendment right? Do the parents own the property being seized? Under your logic, it is the parents home, the child owns nothing, therefore the parents, are the ones that should be prosecuted..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_searches

“In the U.S., the simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent.[1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search.[2]

A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search.[1] The person has the right to refuse to give consent,[1] and except in limited cases may revoke consent at any point during the search.[3] In addition, the prosecution in any trial using the search results as evidence is required to prove that the consent was voluntary and not a result of coercion.[4]

Sources cited in the article.

Where does this eliminate anyone?