Can a search warrant be used to unlawfully extend the area of consent by intentionally opening a sealed container or enclosed space?

can be shown by evidence that "permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected"]; People v. Gorg (1955) 45 Cal.2d 776, 783; In re D.C. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 978, 983.)

Appellant has relied on cases involving police officers who unlawfully extended the area of a consensual search by intentionally opening sealed containers or enclosed spaces. (See United States v. Osage (10th Cir. 2000) 235 F.3d 518, 519 [intentionally opening a sealed can in a suitcase]; United States v. Strickland (11th Cir. 1990) 902 F.2d 937, 939 [intentionally slashing a spare tire in a car trunk]; People v. Cantor (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 961, 964 [intentionally opening a wooden box in the trunk of a car].) Nothing like that was involved in this case. The officers did not extend the area of the search; they gained access to the area of consent. And the officers did not act intentionally; they accidentally shattered the garage window.