Perez v. Simmons

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 18, 1990.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“However, if the officers did not have reasonable grounds for believing that Albert resided in the apartment, the search was illegal under Steagald [v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 , 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981) ].”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Valdez v. McPheters, Perez v. Simmons

““Unless a jury finds that the officers had reasonable grounds for believing that Albert was a co-resident of the apartment, and for believing that Albert was in the apartment at the time, see Payton, 445 U.S. at 603 , 100 S.Ct. at 1388 , the search was in violation of Irma Perez’s constitutional rights.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Valdez v. McPheters, 764 F. Supp. 965 - Bratton v. Toboz

Relies on Perez v. Simmons

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. Castillo (1998), United States v. Jefferson (1991)

55 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Before HUG, ALARCON, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

¶1

Following a petition for rehearing filed by the Government, the opinion in this case, filed August 31, 1989, Perez v. Simmons, 884 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir.1989), is amended as follows:

¶2

Page 1140, first paragraph in second column. The last sentence should be modified to read:

¶3

"However, if the officers did not have reasonable grounds for believing that Albert resided in the apartment, the search was illegal under Steagald."

¶4

Page 1142, first paragraph in first column. The second sentence in the first full paragraph should be changed to read:

¶5

"Unless a jury finds that the officers had reasonable grounds for believing that Albert was a co-resident of the apartment, and for believing that Albert was in the apartment at the time, see Payton, 445 U.S. at 603 100 S.Ct. at 1388, the search was in violation of Irma Perez's constitutional rights."