1) Law enforcement conducted warrantless searches related to Marcus Dixon and a supervision condition that allowed searches of "his" property. He moved to suppress property seized in those searches in part based on an invalid invocation of the search condition: law enforcement didn't establish that the property was "his." Should such a supervisee have at least limited standing to challenge warrantless searches based on supervision conditions authorizing searches of their property?

Should a supervisee have standing to challenge warrantless searches based on supervision conditions authorizing searches of their property when law enforcement fails to establish property ownership