NV erroneously puts burden on def to show that a warrantless entry to a locked bedroom was unreasonable and not a private search

Police were called to a house and the owner wanted the police to enter and search a locked room occupied by another adult with permission from the owner to stay there. The officer declined because defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. The owner, (allegedly, see below) without suggestion or provocation from the police, got the key and opened the door. Without entering the room, the officer could see firearms and bomb making materials in the room. The view was valid. Notably, the court obviously and erroneously puts the burden on the defendant to show that the officer acted unlawfully, which is manifestly not the law because this is a warrantless search of a dwelling. Mooney v. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Rep. 65, 2018 Nev. LEXIS 66 (App. Aug. 30, 2018). [Still, based on the recitation of the facts, it would appear that the defendant would lose even if the burden was put on the state where it belongs: “Although Deputy Shoaf certainly knew Aline was unlocking and opening Mooney’s bedroom door, Mooney failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that Deputy Shoaf actively participated in or encouraged Aline’s actions.” … “Far from ‘affirmatively encourag[ing], instigat[ing], or initiat[ing],’ Wilkinson, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 513, Aline’s intrusive conduct, Mooney can only show that Deputy Shoaf was physically present and he implicitly discouraged her conduct. Thus, we conclude Mooney failed to demonstrate the requisite agency relationship under the first factor. [¶] Because we conclude that Mooney failed to demonstrate that a government officer acquiesced to Aline’s conduct, we need not consider whether Aline intended to assist law enforcement in opening Mooney’s bedroom door.” However, considering the completely wrong Fourth Amendment analysis, one shouldn’t trust the factual recitation because it’s likely only framed to support the conclusion. How do appellate courts with all their law clerks let such sloppy work get by? That’s six or more legal professionals getting it wrong.]