Did the trial court error in concluding the seizure of the methamphetamine from Ernest's wallet was legal?

Scenario:

Officer Pike received a radio dispatch call that a man was acting "crazy" and was threatening small children inside an apartment. The officer went to the apartment where he was met by three other patrol units. When the five officers, Hart, Abram, Beta, Calling, and Dale, went as a group to the front door, a woman answered and said to come in, the man they wanted was inside. She was very upset.

The officers went in and confronted the man. They asked him for his name. He said "Batman". They asked again and he said "Batman". They told Ernest to come outside. He refused and started to leave the room. Officer Hart reached for Ernest's shoulder. Ernest started to run toward the bathroom, yelling, "Catch me if you can, you jokers!" As Ernest began to run, Hart tackled him at the dining room table. Then Officers Hart and Beta got Ernest into handcuffs. Hart and Beta pulled Ernest to his feet and then led him out the front door to Hart's police car. As they were seating Ernest in the car, Officers Abram, Calling and Dale searched the house for children. Officer Abram also looked at the dining room table. On it, he saw a wallet. He took the wallet and opened it. Inside he saw the driver's license belonging to Ernest. He also saw a plastic bindle with white powder in it. Officer Abram took the wallet outside to Hart's police car.

"Here's his wallet," Abram said, as he handed the wallet to Hart. "He's not Batman."

The white powder was tested and found to be methamphetamine, an illegal controlled substance. No little children were ever found in the house.

Ernest was charged by the District Attorney with one felony count of possessing a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11377 (a).

Ernest filed a motion under Penal Code section 1538.5 asking the court to suppress the seizure of the bindle in Ernest's wallet. Officers Hart and Abrams testified to the facts above. Ernest did not challenge the facts as set out, and he did not testify. The trial court ruled that the seizure of the methamphetamine was legal. He did not give reasons for his decision. However, if there is any legal basis for the court's ruling, it will be upheld on appeal.Ernest is appealing the trial court's ruling.