Background
Binisio Nicolas Pereda was released early from state prison and placed on post-release community supervision. His supervision conditions authorized warrantless searches of him, his residence, and any other property under his control. Although Pereda reported his parents’ Lompoc home as his residence, GPS monitoring repeatedly placed him at his girlfriend’s parents’ property in Goleta, including overnight and during the days immediately preceding a planned compliance check.
When officers arrived at the Goleta property, Pereda’s girlfriend’s mother directed them to a trailer near the house. Officers heard Pereda inside, and he eventually emerged. They searched the trailer and found ammunition and glass pipes. They also searched a white Ford F-150 parked beside the trailer and found methamphetamine, fentanyl, and heroin. After Pereda was federally indicted on drug and ammunition charges, the district court suppressed the evidence, concluding that officers lacked probable cause to believe the trailer was his residence or the truck was under his control. The government appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit reversed. Applying the parole exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the majority held that the totality of the circumstances gave officers probable cause to believe Pereda resided in the trailer. The relevant circumstances included months of GPS data placing him at the Goleta property, GPS locations concentrated at the trailer, prior supervision visits to that address, the trailer’s residential features, the statement directing officers to the trailer, and Pereda’s presence inside with his partially clothed girlfriend.
The majority alternatively held that officers had probable cause to believe Pereda controlled the trailer, which it treated as a vehicle covered by the supervision condition for property under his control. It also upheld the truck search because an officer had repeatedly seen Pereda driving a matching Ford F-150, knew Pereda had such a truck registered to him, and saw the truck parked immediately beside the trailer from which Pereda emerged. The court therefore held both searches consistent with the Fourth Amendment and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause that a supervisee resides at a location depends on the totality of the circumstances and cannot be reduced to a mandatory checklist.
- Officers were not required to verify the trailer’s registration, recover its key from Pereda, or eliminate every innocent explanation before searching it.
- A travel trailer may qualify both as a residence and as a vehicle constituting property under a supervisee’s control.
- Prior observations, registration knowledge, proximity, and surrounding circumstances collectively established probable cause to search the Ford F-150.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes a flexible, commonsense probable-cause inquiry when officers invoke a supervisee’s warrantless-search condition. The majority treated the patterns identified in earlier Ninth Circuit residence-search cases as guidance rather than required elements and concluded that officers may rely on the combined force of GPS history, on-scene observations, and prior knowledge.
Judge Richard A. Paez dissented, arguing that Ninth Circuit precedent requires stronger evidence before officers search a third party’s home or property under another person’s supervision condition. The disagreement highlights the tension between effective supervision searches and protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of third parties who live with, host, or park near supervisees.