“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The government appealed a decision that suppressed evidence that an individual possessed drugs and ammunition.
What happened in this case?
As a condition of his early release on parole from state prison, Binisio Nicolas Pereda agreed to warrantless searches of his residence and any property under his control. Based on that provision, officers in Santa Barbara county searched a trailer near a house of his girlfriend’s parents and a nearby pickup truck thought to be used by Pereda. They found ammunition in the trailer and drugs in the truck, and brought charges against him in federal district court.
Pereda filed a motion to suppress this evidence, contending that the early release conditions he had agreed to were violated. The district court agreed and granted the motion, writing a 24-page opinion explaining the order. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Trunp judge Patrick Bumatay wrote a 2-1 opinion in July, joined by George W Bush judge Consuelo Callahan, which reversed the decision below and reinstated the evidence against Pereda so that the case against him could proceed. Based on the “totality of the circumstances,” Bumatay wrote, there was probable cause to believe that Pereda lived in or controlled the trailer and possessed the truck, according to the decision in US v Pereda. Bill Clinton judge Richard Paez dissented.
Why did Judge Paez dissent?
Judge Paez wrote that the majority opinion “ignores” the recognized “relatively stringent standard,” under which officers must be “reasonably sure” that they were “at the right house” and had the “right person’s property” before conducting a search. He discussed the facts, the record, and controlling case law in detail, and concluded that the distinct court was correct in suppressing the evidence. As Judge Paez concluded, the officers’ failure to even ask Pereda, his girlfriend, or her parents questions like “who lives here” and “whose truck is this” reflected an improper “rush to judgment, not reasonable investigation, warranting suppression.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision written by Trump judge Bumatay obviously harms Binisio Nicolas Pereda by allowing the criminal case against him for drug and ammunition possession to proceed. It also sets a bad precedent concerning probable cause for a search, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.