Does the Attorney General have the authority to suppress a search of a defendant's home?

The Attorney General relies on People v. Oldham (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1, in which a defendant's argument that his father had no authority to consent to the search of a bedroom was found not to have preserved a challenge to the search of containers found in the bedroom. But the defendant in Oldham never claimed sole ownership of the containers at the hearing on the suppression motion, nor did he point out any inadequacies in the prosecution's consent justification. (Id. at p. 14 ["Without such claim [of ownership] or without pointing out any inadequacies in the prosecution's justification for Father's consent to search the specific items found in the master bedroom suite, neither the prosecutor nor the court was put on notice that additional justification for the scope of the search into any particular item was required."].) In contrast, defendant here did claim sole ownership of the containers at issue and also argued that the search of his "personal containers" exceeded his wife's authority to consent.

Page 11