Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Page 4
Court of Appeal:
Ordering Suspect Out of Home Does Not Dodge Warrant Rule
Opinion Acknowledges Discordance in Jurisprudence, Follows Approach That Looks to Location of Suspect at Time of Contact, Rather Than That of Officers, to Determine if Court-Preauthorization Is Required
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge erred in denying the suppression motion of a defendant who was handcuffed after being ordered to come out of a home in which he was spotted through an open front door, rejecting the assertion that the officers did not need a warrant because they did not step foot inside the residence.
Friday’s opinion was written by Justice Nathan Scott, who acknowledged that federal and state cases have split on whether warrantless arrests of suspects who are detained after they comply with orders to vacate a home violate the Fourth Amendment but said that the court found “compelling” decisions that look to the location of the suspect rather than that of the officers to determine whether judicial authorization for the seizure is required.
Noting that “it was undisputed that there had been neither probable cause to arrest him, nor a warrant, nor exigent circumstances” and that the suspect “was a guest with a reasonable expectation of privacy inside the residence,” Scott opined that the defendant’s detention, accomplished just outside of the home, was unlawful.
Seeking to vindicate his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was Ulises Perez, who was contacted inside a friend’s apartment on March 18, 2022 after he was seen by officers who were looking for a suspect that a witness had purportedly seen placing a firearm into a white Kia.
Closed Screen Door
An officer had seen Perez pacing back and forth near a vehicle matching the witness’ description and observed him sitting on a couch inside a nearby apartment through the closed screen door. He was ordered to exit the unit at gunpoint.
Once outside, Perez was placed in handcuffs and identified by the witness as the armed suspect. The white Kia was impounded after it was found to be blocking an alley, and an inventory search revealed guns and illegal narcotics inside the vehicle.
Officers then formally arrested Perez, searched him, and located pay-owe sheets, a cellphone, and a receipt relating to the purchase of the car. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon and numerous narcotics offenses, among other crimes.
After a motion to suppress the evidence against him was denied in May 2022, Perez pled guilty to all counts. In March 2024, Orange Superior Court Judge Larry Yellin sentenced him to three years in prison.
Friday’s opinion, joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Thomas A. Delaney and Justice Martha K. Gooding, reverses the judgment of conviction and remands with instructions to permit the withdrawal of his plea and to “grant [the] motion to the extent it sought to exclude his in-field identification, his statements during his initial seizure, and all items seized on his person.”
In-Home Arrest
Saying that “an arrest in the home requires more than just probable cause” and “also requires either a warrant or exigent circumstances,” Scott pointed out that “it was undisputed” at the suppression hearing that the officers acted without either condition being present.
Addressing the assertion by lawyers with the Attorney General’s Office that Perez’s seizure was lawful because it was merely a so-called Terry stop, named after the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio establishing that officers may conduct brief investigative detentions based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he said that “this exception to the probable cause requirement generally” does not apply to residential searches and seizures.
“Adding that an in-home arrest also requires a warrant even if probable cause does exist, absent exigent circumstances, he noted that “[c]ourts have disagreed on whether warrantless in-house arrests without entry are permissible,” citing federal circuit court jurisprudence.
Looking to California case law, he acknowledged the 1985 decision by Div. Four of the First District Court of Appeal in People v. Trudell but said:
“The 40-year-old case the Attorney General cites in support of warrantless arrests without entry carries little weight….In that case, involving similar facts, the majority opinion relied in large part on its conclusion that ‘the arrest occurred outside of [the defendant’s] residence’…, even though police summoned him out through ‘bullhorned orders delivered at gunpoint’….No published California case has ever endorsed this analysis….We decline to follow it.”
2014 Opinion
Instead, Scott pointed to the 2014 opinion by Div. Two of the Fourth District in People v. Lujano, in which the court invalidated the seizure of a man inside a residence where “[t]he officers were aware of no facts particular to the occupant…. suggesting that he was a burglar…rather than a resident” at the time he was commanded to come outside.
Saying that Lujano adopted an approach that focuses on the location of the arrested person, and not the detaining parties, Scott concluded:
“We find this approach compelling and reach a similar conclusion here. The Terry exception did not permit the officers to order Perez out of the residence without both probable cause and a warrant.”
In a footnote, he commented:
“In response to our request for supplemental briefing on whether Terry v. Ohio [(which)]…applies to in-home seizures, the Attorney General argues for the first time that the officers had probable cause to believe that Perez had violated Penal Code section 26350 (openly carrying an unloaded handgun). We decline to consider this new theory….”
The case is People v. Perez, 2026 S.O.S. 776.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company