United States v. Perez, 89 F.4th 247

Background

Gilbert Perez was arrested after law enforcement in Massachusetts, acting on suspicion of a drug transaction, chased and apprehended him while he was wearing a backpack.
Police handcuffed Perez after a foot pursuit and immediately searched his backpack, finding fentanyl and cocaine inside.
Perez was indicted on federal drug charges and moved to suppress the evidence found in his backpack, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The District Court denied the motion to suppress, relying on United States v. Eatherton, which permits warrantless searches of containers on an arrestee as a search incident to arrest.
Perez entered a conditional guilty plea to preserve his right to appeal this suppression issue.
On appeal to the First Circuit, Perez argued that subsequent Supreme Court rulings undermined Eatherton's validity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eatherton remains valid controlling precedent for warrantless searches of containers on an arrestee	Perez argued that Supreme Court decisions in Chadwick and Gant undermine Eatherton, making such searches invalid absent exigent circumstances or warrant	The government argued Eatherton controls, and intervening Supreme Court decisions do not overrule or clearly abrogate it	The court held Eatherton remains binding; intervening Supreme Court cases do not "clearly and convincingly" require a different result
Whether the search of Perez’s backpack violated the Fourth Amendment	Perez argued it did because once secured and the backpack was out of reach, officer safety and evidence destruction rationales no longer applied	The government argued the search was permissible as a search incident to arrest because the backpack was carried at the time of arrest	Held for the government: Eatherton categorically permits search of containers in arrestee’s possession at arrest
Whether post-Eatherton Supreme Court rulings (Chadwick, Gant) require applying an immediate control analysis instead	Perez: Chadwick & Gant require "immediate control" analysis and limit categorical searches, especially for containers outside the arrestee’s reach	Government: Chadwick/Gant don't address containers carried/held by arrestee at arrest; precedent is unaffected	The court held those cases do not clearly undermine Eatherton; law-of-the-circuit doctrine applies
Whether the good-faith exception to exclusionary rule applies if the search was unlawful	Perez (in dissent): Good-faith exception shouldn’t apply as Eatherton is no longer clear, well-settled law due to Supreme Court guidance	Government: Officers relied on binding circuit precedent, so good-faith exception applies	Majority: Not directly addressed since search was upheld; dissent would reject good-faith exception

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Eatherton, 519 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1975) (upheld warrantless search of briefcase carried by arrestee as valid search incident to arrest)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limited scope of searches incident to arrest to immediate control area for officer safety/evidence preservation)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (upheld categorical search of items on arrestee's person during arrest)
United States v. Gustafson, 414 U.S. 260 (1973) (applied Robinson to permit search of container found on arrestee’s person)
United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974) (allowed post-arrest search of clothing taken from arrestee while in custody)
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) (warrant required for container not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limited vehicle search incident to arrest to situations where arrestee can access the area or it contains evidence of the crime)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (digital information on arrestee’s cell phone not searchable incident to arrest without a warrant)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply where police acted in good-faith reliance on binding precedent)