See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006); Police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects.
and
Indiana Code, IC 35-44-1-2
Official misconduct
Sec. 2. A public servant who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally performs an act that the public servant is forbidden by law to perform;
(2) performs an act the public servant is not authorized by law to perform, with intent to obtain any property for himself or herself;
(3) knowingly or intentionally solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from an appointee or employee any property other than what the public servant is authorized by law to accept as a condition of continued employment;
(4) knowingly or intentionally acquires or divests himself or herself of a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise or aids another person to do so based on information obtained by virtue of the public servant's office that official action that has not been made public is contemplated;
(5) knowingly or intentionally fails to deliver public records and property in the public servant's custody to the public servant's successor in office when that successor qualifies; or
(6) knowingly or intentionally violates IC 36-6-4-17(b);
commits official misconduct, a Class D felony. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.4. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.54; Acts 1980, P.L.73, SEC.2; P.L.34-1992, SEC.2;
P.L.222-2005, SEC.48.
In Randolph the guy lived there. The woman had clearly moved out and had, in fact, GONE TO CANADA.
If you want to apply this case to the situation in Indiana note that the woman lived there and the guy had got his stuff and moved out!
The USSC ruled in favor of the occupant who lived there ALONE ~ as would they rule in favor of the woman in this case because she lived there ALONE.