Opinion ID: 49000
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Perez's Arguments

Text: 9 Perez argues that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his premises on June 9, 2004. Perez first insists that there was insufficient probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant. Perez alleges that mere association between an IP address and a physical address is insufficient to establish probable cause. Even if the initial determination that probable cause existed was reasonable, however, Perez argues that [t]he discovery that multiple people resided at Perez's residence undermined the basis for the magistrate's probable-cause determination. Perez argues that the officers' discovery of Perez's housemates should have indicated to them that there was no longer probable cause to believe that Perez was the source of the unlawful transmissions. He further argues that the existence of these two housemates was material information that the officers had a duty to report to the issuing magistrate. Finally, Perez argues that the good-faith exception does not apply because the officers' reliance on the warrant was no longer objectively reasonable once they discovered that two other persons lived with Perez at 7608 Scenic Brook Drive.