Can a court overturn a finding that a toolbox containing marijuana was seized during a search at the home of a father and son?

The trial court ruled the arrest illegal for noncompliance with People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263, 127 Cal.Rptr. 629, 545 P.2d 1333, because no exigent circumstances existed and there was sufficient time for the officer to secure an arrest warrant. The court nonetheless denied a motion to suppress as evidence the marijuana found in the toolbox. It concluded that search of the box was independent from the arrest and was pursuant to a valid consent. The court reasoned that, because the father owned the house and had a duty to control his son's activities, he could permit the search at any time, whether or not his son was present or under arrest. ¹

[24 Cal.3d 400] After hearing the trial court's ruling, defendant admitted possessing marijuana for sale on the date of his arrest as charged and was adjudged a juvenile court ward. He contends on appeal that denial of his motion to suppress was erroneous. If so, he is entitled to withdraw his admission. (People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 767-769, 117 Cal.Rptr. 393, 528 P.2d 1.)