People v. Perez

California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 2026 No. G064219Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by ordering a suspect out of a residence to effectuate a seizure without a warrant or probable cause, even if the officers remained outside the home. Consequently, evidence obtained as a result of this unlawful in-residence seizure must be suppressed.

Issues

Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to order a suspect out of a residence for a detention based only on reasonable suspicion without a warrant.
Whether an in-residence seizure occurs when officers order a suspect out of a home while remaining outside themselves.
Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained following an unlawful in-residence seizure.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree that Perez’s in-residence seizure was unconstitutional and required suppression of certain evidence.”

“[I]t is the location of the arrested person, and not the arresting agents, that determines whether an arrest occurs within a home.”

“The Terry exception did not permit the officers to order Perez out of the residence without both probable cause and a warrant.”

Filed 3/20/26

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064219

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22NF0712)

ULISES PEREZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Larry Yellin, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Ulises Perez challenges his convictions for firearm and drug offenses, asserting that the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion. He contends police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by ordering him out of a residence without probable cause and without a warrant. We agree that Perez’s in-residence seizure was unconstitutional and required suppression of certain evidence. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. FACTS At around 11:00 p.m., officers responded to a 911 call reporting a man walking around with a gun in an area known to have gang activity. A follow-up call detailed the man’s appearance and said he had placed a gun inside a white Kia in a nearby parking lot. A responding officer realized he had seen a man matching that description—later identified as Perez—pacing back and forth near a white Kia. Perez was seen entering an apartment nearby.1 An officer walked up to the open front door, shined his flashlight through the closed screen door, and saw Perez sitting on a couch facing the door. Gun drawn, the officer told Perez that he was being detained and ordered him out. Perez initially did not move. After another officer drew his gun and several more orders to come out, Perez complied. Once he was outside, officers placed Perez in handcuffs. He declined to answer any questions. The reporting party identified Perez as the man who had placed the gun in the white Kia. The car, which was blocking the alley, was impounded; an inventory search found a gun and drugs. Officers then formally arrested and searched Perez, finding his I.D., cash,

People v. Perez

AI Brief

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

ULISES PEREZ, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SCOTT, J.

DELANEY, ACTING P. J.

GOODING, J.

AI Brief