{"id":213,"date":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=213"},"modified":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-perez-in-home-seizure-warrant-probable-cause-fourth-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=213","title":{"rendered":"People v. Perez \u2014 Police cannot order a person out of a home without a warrant or probable cause; in-home detention rule extends to officers standing outside"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Perez<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-03-20<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
G064219<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Fourth Amendment, in-home seizure, warrantless arrest, Terry stop, Lujano, exclusionary rule, suppression motion, felon in possession<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

At about 11:00 p.m., Anaheim officers responded to a 911 call reporting a man walking around with a gun in an area associated with gang activity. A follow-up call described the man and said he had placed the gun in a white Kia in a nearby parking lot. A responding officer recognized a man matching the description, later identified as Ulises Perez, who had been pacing near the white Kia. Perez then went into a nearby apartment.<\/p>\n

An officer walked up to the open front door, shined his flashlight through the closed screen door, and saw Perez sitting on a couch. With his gun drawn, the officer told Perez he was being detained and ordered him to come out. After several orders and additional officers also drawing guns, Perez complied. Once outside, officers handcuffed him. The 911 reporter then identified Perez as the man with the gun. The white Kia was impounded and an inventory search uncovered a gun and drugs. Officers searched Perez and found identification, pay-owe notations, and other evidence. A records check revealed prior felony convictions.<\/p>\n

The People charged Perez with felon-in-possession and drug offenses. Perez moved to suppress the evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, arguing the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by ordering him out of the home without a warrant and without probable cause. The trial court denied the motion, treating the initial encounter as a lawful Terry detention based on reasonable suspicion. Perez pleaded guilty and received a three-year prison sentence.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to permit Perez to withdraw his guilty plea and to grant his motion to suppress in part. The court held that Perez was seized inside the residence when he submitted to the officers’ show of authority by walking out at gunpoint. Under California v. Hodari D., a seizure occurs when an individual submits to a police show of authority. Because Perez submitted while still inside the apartment, the seizure occurred in the home, where Fourth Amendment protections are at their strongest.<\/p>\n

The court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that this was a lawful Terry detention. The Terry rule, allowing brief investigative detentions on reasonable suspicion, generally does not apply to in-home seizures. The court also rejected the argument that no warrant was needed because officers stayed outside. Adopting the analysis from People v. Lujano and the Second Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Allen, the court held that the location of the arrested person, not the location of the arresting officer, controls the warrant analysis. The court declined to follow People v. Trudell, a 1985 opinion that allowed warrantless in-home seizures by officers who remained outside, observing that no published California case has endorsed Trudell’s reasoning since Hodari D. and Lujano.<\/p>\n

The court also declined to consider the Attorney General’s newly raised theory that officers had probable cause to believe Perez had violated Penal Code section 26350 by openly carrying an unloaded handgun. That theory was not raised at the suppression hearing and was untimely on appeal. Because the seizure was unconstitutional, the items seized on Perez’s person, his refusal to answer questions, and the in-field identification by the reporting party must be suppressed as fruits of the illegal seizure.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n