Robles moved to suppress evidence obtained from his garage as a result of a warrantless search by police. The trial court denied the motion because Robles’s brother, with whom he lived, was on searchable probation, even though the officers involved were not aware of the probation condition at the time of the search. The California Supreme Court reversed. The logic of In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, cannot be stretched to legitimize the police action here. If a person lives with a probationer, common or shared areas of their residence may be searched by officers aware of an applicable search condition when it is reasonably and objectively related to the purpose of probation. However, cohabitants need not anticipate that officers with no prior knowledge of a search condition may freely invade their residence absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. (Concurring opinions by J. Mosk, Kennard, and Brown, reiterated their criticisms of Tyrell J. expressed in their dissents following that opinion.)

The inevitable discovery doctrine was not properly applied in this case, because there were no exigent circumstances and the garage was separate from the house in which the contraband was observed. (Concurring opinions by J. Mosk, Kennard, and Brown, reiterated their criticisms of Tyrell J. expressed in their dissents following that opinion.)