*—Following presentation of the State's evidence by stipulation, and the defense testimony of Duncan Leach, defendant was convicted in King County Superior Court of three counts of second degree burglary and one count of second degree attempted theft. Defendant appealed his convictions, contending they were based upon evidence that had been seized in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct an additional hearing regarding the facts surrounding the allegedly violative search. State v. Leach, 52 Wn. App. 490, 761 P.2d 83 (1988). The State sought review.
At issue is the validity of a warrantless search where consent is obtained from a third party who possesses some control over the premises, but the defendant, who has superior control, is present at the time the search is conducted. We hold the police must obtain the consent of a cohabitant who is present and able to object in order to effect a valid warrantless search.
*737Facts
In June 1986, Duncan Leach opened a travel agency named "Why Not Travel" in an office complex in Renton, Washington. Between July 9 and July 11, 1986, the C.J. Nagel Insurance Agency, a business in the same office complex as defendant's travel agency, was burglarized. Stolen were a notary stamp, other rubber stamps, and a box of copier paper. Between July 10 and July 12, 1986, the SPA Fitness, another business in the same office complex, was burglarized and a 3M brand copying machine was stolen. Finally, between July 11 and July 14, 1986, American Hot Airlines, also in the same complex, was burglarized and $150 in cash was stolen. On July 15, 1986, Duncan Leach contacted his insurance agent and the King County Police to report his travel agency had been burglarized and that an inteletype machine, as well as cash, had been stolen.
On July 24, 1986, Cynthia Armstrong, Duncan Leach's girl friend, who also went by the name Cynthia Leach, telephoned Detective Tucker of the King County Police to request a meeting with him. They subsequently met in front of the Renton Police Department and, at that time, Ms. Armstrong displayed a notary stamp and two rubber signature stamps bearing the name C.J. Nagel Insurance Agency. Additionally, Ms. Armstrong showed Detective Tucker a picture of Duncan Leach.
The following day, after executing a consent to search form for the travel agency office, Ms. Armstrong escorted Detective Tucker to the office and unlocked the business door with a key Duncan Leach had provided her. Mr. Leach was present at the business when they arrived. Detective Tucker placed Mr. Leach under arrest, handcuffed him, and placed him in an office chair. Detective Tucker then searched the office. During the search, Detective Tucker discovered a 3M brand copying machine that matched the description of the machine stolen from the health spa, some checks from the C.J. Nagel Insurance Agency, and the inteletype machine Mr. Leach had previously reported stolen. It should be noted, there is no evidence Detective *738Tucker sought Mr. Leach's consent to search the office, nor is it established whether Mr. Leach objected to the search.
Upon Mr. Leach's pretrial motion to suppress the fruits of the police search of his office, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, Ms. Armstrong testified she had considered Duncan Leach her common law husband, and she had used the name "Leach" on numerous legal documents. Ms. Armstrong further testified: (1) Mr. Leach had given her a key to the office; (2) she had done minor tasks in the office approximately eight times during the 2 months the business had been open; (3) her name appeared on the lease of the premises, although someone else had actually signed her name on the lease; and (4) her name also appeared on business cards directly below Duncan Leach's name and the term "Owners".
The Court of Appeals held a third party's consent to a search is invalid where the defendant is present at the time of the search, has a superior privacy interest in the premises, and objects to the search. State v. Leach, 52 Wn. App. at 496. Accordingly, the court remanded for additional findings.
Analysis
We begin with the assumption warrantless searches, and seizures incident thereto, are per se unreasonable, thus violative of constitutional protections. State v. Houser, 95 Wn.2d 143, 149, 622 P.2d 1218 (1980). As a result, the burden rests firmly upon the State to rebut the presumption by establishing the existence of one of the "carefully delineated" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 760, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235, 99 S. Ct. 2586 (1979). See also State v. Mathe, 102 Wn.2d 537, 540-41, 688 P.2d 859 (1984).
Properly established, consent is one such exception. State v. Vidor, 75 Wn.2d 607, 452 P.2d 961 (1969). "Consent to a search establishes the validity of that search if the person giving consent has the authority to so consent." State v. Mathe, 102 Wn.2d at 541.
*739In United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 170, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242, 94 S. Ct. 988 (1974), the Court held "the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared." (Italics ours.) In a footnote, the Court explained the term "common authority":
Common authority is, of course, not to be implied from the mere property interest a third party has in the property. The authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.
(Citations omitted.) United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 n.7. This court has expressly adopted the Matlock standard for determining issues of consent under Const, art. 1, § 7. State v. Mathe, 102 Wn.2d at 543. Thus, it serves as the guidepost for our analysis under both constitutions.
As this court has recognized, the justification for the "common authority" rule enunciated in Matlock is based upon the theories of "reasonable expectation of privacy" and "assumption of risk". State v. Christian, 95 Wn.2d 655, 659-60, 628 P.2d 806 (1981). In essence, an individual sharing authority over an otherwise private enclave inherently has a lessened expectation that his affairs will remain only within his purview, as the other cohabitants may permit entry in their own right. As a result, the law recognizes the individual has assumed the risk a cohabitant may permit a search of a commonly shared area, in the individual's absence.
The common authority rule, then, requires a 2-prong analysis: "First, a consenting party must be able to permit the search in his own right. Second, it must be reasonable to find that the defendant has assumed the risk that a co-*740occupant might permit a search." State v. Mathe, 102 Wn.2d at 543-44. As the Court of Appeals in the instant case properly recognized, Ms. Armstrong's authority over the premises would have validated a warrantless search in Mr. Leach's absence.
However, since the rule enunciated in Matlock only refers to "absent, nonconsenting" persons, we must determine whether the rationale upon which Matlock rests is equally applicable where the defendant is present at the time of the search. Arguably, one's ability to control the premises is not subordinated to a joint occupant when one remains on the premises and is able to object to access by others.
Neither commentators nor case law is in accord as to the appropriate rule in such an instance:
On the one hand, the theory that Matlock is intended to leave the joint occupant with "freedom to act in his own or the public interest" is said to extend even to the point where that freedom must prevail when the defendant is "present and objecting." The contrary position is that the consent of both is required when both are present because "ordinarily, persons with equal 'rights' in a place would accommodate each other by not admitting persons over another's objection while he was present."
(Footnotes omitted.) 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.3(d), at 251-52 (2d ed. 1987). Therein, LaFave noted, ”[t]hough there is merit to both positions, the latter has somewhat greater appeal." 3 W. LaFave, at 252. We are similarly persuaded.
In Lucero v. Donovan, 354 F.2d 16 (9th Cir. 1965), an action brought against police officers for unlawful arrest and search, the police obtained the brother's consent to search his sister's apartment, where the brother was arguably only an invitee. When the police and her brother entered, the sister demanded the production of a search warrant. After arresting and handcuffing the sister, the police proceeded to search the apartment, having produced no warrant. Ultimately, no incriminating evidence was discovered. In reversing the judgment following a directed *741verdict in favor of the police officers, the court held the brother's consent, in light of the sister's presence, was invalid to confer authority for a warrantless search:
Assuming that Frank gave his own consent for search of the apartment, his authority, if any, to act for his sister was rescinded by her expressed protest and her demand for a search warrant.
Lucero v. Donovan, 354 F.2d at 21.
Similarly, in Lawton v. State, 320 So. 2d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975), the estranged wife of the defendant obtained entrance to the defendant's apartment after borrowing the passkey from the apartment manager. Upon entering the bedroom to the apartment, the wife discovered the defendant with another woman and observed marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The wife promptly went next door and telephoned the police. When the police arrived, the wife opened the apartment door and told the officers to enter. Inside, the husband confronted the officers and told them to leave. Resolving the clash between consent and objection, the court held:
Assuming, without deciding, that Mrs. Lawton still had sufficient control over the premises as to authorize her to consent to a search, we believe that the search cannot stand because appellant was physically present on the premises and affirmatively objected to the search.
Lawton v. State, 320 So. 2d at 464. Two years later, that rule was well explained:
[T]he person whose property is the object of a search should have controlling authority to refuse consent. . . . Though a joint occupant should have authority to consent to a search of jointly held premises if the other party is unavailable, a present, objecting party should not have his constitutional rights ignored because of a leasehold or other property interest shared with another. This is particularly true where the police are aware that the person objecting is the one whose constitutional rights are at stake.
(Citation omitted.) Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559, 562-63 (Fla. 1977). See also Tompkins v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. 2d 65, 378 P.2d 113, 27 Cal. Rptr. 889 (1963).
As one commentator has noted, the point at which the difficult choice between consent and objection must be *742made is only where the occupants have equal use and control of the premises and where both are present:
When two or more persons have equal use of a place in which both are present, the consent of one does not normally eliminate' the need for the consent of the other(s) before a search is made; ordinarily, persons with equal "rights" in a place would accommodate each other by not admitting persons over another's objection while he was present.
Weinreb, Generalities of the Fourth Amendment, 42 U. Chi. L. Rev. 47, 63 (1974-1975).
Nonetheless, other jurisdictions have adopted the contrary rule. In People v. Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286, 397 N.E.2d 1319, 422 N.Y.S.2d 652 (1979), an unmarried couple occasionally shared an apartment. Following a domestic quarrel, the woman telephoned the police, waited in the outer vestibule of the apartment until the police arrived, informed the officers there was an illegally possessed gun and cocaine in the apartment, and then escorted the police into the apartment. They were met by the defendant, whom the officers handcuffed under protest and made lie face down on the floor. In affirming the conviction, the court reasoned
an individual who possesses the requisite degree of control over specific premises is vested in his own right with the authority to permit an official inspection of such premises . . . [T]he fact remains that where an individual shares with others common authority over premises or property, he has no right to prevent a search in the face of the knowing and voluntary consent of a co-occupant with equal authority.
People v. Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d at 292.
Citing the rationale in People v. Cosme, supra, the court in State v. Frame, 45 Or. App. 723, 609 P.2d 830 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 968 (1981), similarly affirmed the conviction of a husband, where the wife had given the key to their home and her consent to search to the police. Upon entering the home, the officers confronted the husband, handcuffed him, and informed him they had his wife's consent to search.
In order to find third party consent reasonable in these cases, the Oregon and New York courts were constrained to *743ignore the distinction between the facts at issue and those in Matlock. While it is reasonable for the law to presume an individual has assumed the risk a cohabitant will permit others to enter during his absence, where that individual is present, he has not assumed that a cohabitant will permit entrance over his objection.
The only Washington case that has brushed this issue is State v. Chichester, 48 Wn. App. 257, 738 P.2d 329 (1987). Therein, an absent wife consented to a police search of the home. Although the defendant husband was present, he was not afforded an opportunity to object. Accordingly, the trial court suppressed the evidence. The Court of Appeals, however, held the wife's consent was valid under the common authority rule. With limited analysis of the issue we discuss today, the court devoted most of its energy to a discussion of the reasonableness of the entry, absent compliance with the "knock and wait" statute.
Reaching a result contrary to Chichester, the Court of Appeals in the instant case relied heavily upon United States v. Impink, 728 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir. 1984), the most recent case to discuss this issue. In Impink, the lessor of a home had been given limited authority by the lessee to store an item in the garage adjacent to the home. Upon sighting laboratory equipment in the garage, the landlord notified police and assisted them in gaining entry into the home. During their investigation, the police knew the lessee was present, yet failed to obtain his consent. The court reversed the defendant's conviction:
We do not hold that police must invariably seek consent from the suspect before relying on a third party's consent. However, when the police intentionally bypass a suspect who is present and known by them to possess a superior privacy interest, the validity of third party consent is less certain.
. . . [W]e . . . conclude that effective consent was precluded by the combined elements of this case. Where a suspect is present and objecting to a search, implied consent by a third party with an inferior privacy interest is ineffective.
*744(Citations omitted.) United States v. Impink, 728 F.2d at 1234. We are persuaded by much of the Ninth Circuit's analysis.
Where the police have obtained consent to search from an individual possessing, at best, equal control over the premises, that consent remains valid against a cohabitant, who also possesses equal control, only while the cohabitant is absent. However, should the cohabitant be present and able to object, the police must also obtain the cohabitant's consent. Any other rule exhalts expediency over an individual's Fourth Amendment guaranties. Accordingly, we refuse to beat a path to the door of exceptions.
Where, as here, the police obtain information establishing probable cause to effect a lawful search, ideally they would obtain a warrant. We wholeheartedly concur with the sentiment expressed in United States v. Impink, supra at 1231: "Where the police have ample opportunity to obtain a warrant, we do not look kindly on their failure to do so." Where the police are content to rely upon the consent of a third party to validate a warrantless search, there is an improvident risk of an illegal search and seizure. In point of fact, there should have been no confusion in the case at hand. From the State's perspective, Ms. Armstrong, at best, had only equal control over the office. Thus, when confronted with Mr. Leach's presence, not having obtained a warrant, the officer should have requested Mr. Leach's consent, as well.
Accordingly, we remand for the purpose of an evidentiary hearing where the burden will be upon the State to establish it obtained consent from Mr. Leach.
Utter, Brachtenbach, Dolliver, and Smith, JJ., concur.
Judge Vernon R. Pearson is serving as a justice pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Const, art. 4, § 2(a) (amend. 38).