Perez

United States v. Perez

Good Law
64 F. App'x 635
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 8, 2003No. 02-10411; D.C. No. CR-00-00139-SOMCalifornia364 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Mfredo Perez entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, more than 50 grams of crystal methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 846. He appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

We review the district court’s ultimate conclusion that Perez did not have standing to contest the legality of the search de novo, and accept its findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. See United States v. Padilla, 111 F.3d 685, 687 (9th Cir.1997). A defendant must show that he has standing to challenge a search by demonstrating “a subjective expectation of privacy that is objectively reasonable” in the area searched. See United States v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665, 670 (9th Cir.1991).

The package was detained at the post office overnight until a drug search canine alerted to it. The package was not addressed to Perez, and he does not indicate how he had any possessory or privacy interest in it at the time. Instead, he argues that he had a privacy interest in the home of the addressee, Rosa Hernandez, where he resided at the time. This is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.