[Mavdog]

The opinion actually states that the Government erred in their points in arguing the appeal:

"It might be arguable that the officers made a "good faith mistake"of fact in believing that Cabral, acting with either actual or apparent authority, had given them valid consent to search Gould's bedroom. However, the Government does not assert this argument on appeal and this court will not consider nonjurisdictional issues not raised on appeal"

Seems that if the Government arguments had been framed differently the court would have overturned the prior judgement, no? Then the evidence found would have been admisable, yes?