In In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 68, the minor was declared a ward of the court for his commission of a battery, and placed on probation "subject to a variety of conditions, including that he 'submit to a search of his person and property, with or without a warrant, by any law enforcement officer, probation officer or school official.'" (In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal. 4th at p. 74.) In October 1991, the minor and two friends were attending a football game. Although the temperature exceeded 80 degrees, a Fresno police officer noticed one of the minor's friends wearing a heavy coat. The officer, along with a detective, approached the three boys, and after pulling away the coat, observed a large knife. The three boys were then asked to walk over to a fence. As the minor walked to the fence, he was seen adjusting his pants three times. Once the minor reached the fence, the officer conducted a pat search, and discovered a bag of marijuana. (Id. at pp. 74-75.) Although the officer testified he was unaware of the search condition at the time of the search, the juvenile court denied the minor's suppression motion. The Court, however, reversed, finding the officer did not have probable cause to search the minor, and the existent search condition did not validate the search. (Id. at p. 75.) The Supreme Court granted the People's petition for review and reversed, stating: "A juvenile probationer subject to a valid search condition does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over his or her person or property. In this case, Tyrell J. was subject to a valid search condition, directly imposed on him by the juvenile court in a prior matter. We presume he was aware of that limitation on his freedom, and that any police officer, probation officer, or school official could at any time stop him on the street, at school, or even enter his home, and ask that he submit to a warrantless search. There is no indication the minor was led to believe that only police officers who were aware of the condition would validly execute it. The minor certainly could not reasonably have believed Officer Villemin would not search him, for he did not know whether Villemin was aware of the search condition. Thus, any expectation the minor may have had concerning the privacy of his bag of marijuana was manifestly unreasonable." (In re Tyrell J., supra, 8 Cal. 4th at p. 86, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 33, 876 P.2d 519.) In Tyrell J., the Court concluded that dispensing with a strict 'knowledge-first' rule would not encourage law enforcement officials to engage in warrantless searches of juveniles because they would be 'taking the chance' that if the target of a search is not subject to a search condition, any contraband found will be inadmissible in court. Although police officers therefore have sufficient incentive to avoid an improper search of a person (ibid.), residential searches present an altogether different situation.In In re Tyrell J. (1994) the Supreme Court upheld a warrantless search of a juvenile probationer, finding irrelevant the police officer's ignorance of the minor probationer's search condition. (Id. at pp. 74, 84-86.) The Supreme Court concluded that a juvenile probationer subject to a valid search clause does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over his person or property and thus his "expectation of privacy is not one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable and legitimate." (Id. at p. 86.) The court emphasized: "There is no indication the minor was led to believe that only police officers who were aware of the condition would validly execute it. The minor certainly could not reasonably have believed that the searching officer would not search him, for he did not know whether the officer was aware of the search condition." (Ibid)