What is the test for a motion to suppress a search?

Defendant appeals the magistrate's denial of his suppression motion, claiming no exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applied and that the officers were not justified in performing a "protective sweep" of his home. In defendant's view, the court erred in failing to exclude all of the evidence collected as the fruit of an illegal search. Although he acknowledges the general rule that a defendant must renew a motion to suppress in the trial court in order to preserve the issue of the legality of a search for appeal (People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896-897 (Lilienthal)), he nonetheless argues we should reach the merits of his challenge to the search because his counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue and the record shows his counsel had no tactical reason for not renewing the motion.