The trial court’s reliance on In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, in a suppression motion decided before People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, required remand for new hearing on the motion to suppress, not full reversal. A police officer encountered defendant, a parolee, on the street. Defendant was taken to the hospital where doctors removed a rock of cocaine from his mouth. No evidence was presented as to whether the officer knew of the search condition. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress based on the parole search condition. While defendant’s appeal was pending, Sanders – which held that an officer must know of the search condition to justify a search under that condition – was decided. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment outright, but the Supreme Court reversed. Since Sanders was arguably a major change in the law, the parties had no reason to present argument on whether the officers knew of the search condition. In a situation “where the parties understandably did not present arguments and evidence relating to search issues, a reviewing court should remand to the trial court to consider any alternate grounds for or against suppression.”