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

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?