NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-1734
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PHILLIP PARROTT,
a/k/a Termaine Womack
a/k/a Anthony Womack
PHILLIP PARROTT,
Appellant
______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-09-cr-00245-001
District Judge: The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 8, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 10, 2011)
_____________________
OPINION
_____________________
1
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Phillip Parrott (“Defendant”) is appealing the District Court’s denial of his motion
to suppress the shotgun that the police found in his home at the time of his arrest because
the search allegedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights. 1 We will affirm.
At approximately 1:30 a.m. on November 30, 2008, Philadelphia Police Officers
Janeen Jones and Louis Pacell responded to a call that there was a man with a gun on the
3600 block of North Bouvier Street in Philadelphia. While en route, the officers received
another call that shots had been fired at the aforementioned location. After arriving at the
3600 block, the officers saw a man holding a sawed-off shotgun. The man ran into the
house located at 3631 North Bouvier Street (the “house”) with the gun, and the officers
established a perimeter and waited for back up.
A woman — who was later determined to be Monique Parrott, Defendant’s wife
(“Mrs. Parrott”) — leaned out of a window in the house and asked the officers what was
happening. The officers told her that a man ran into the house. Although Mrs. Parrott
initially denied that a man entered the house, later she told the officers that somebody
whom she did not know entered the house and ran out the backdoor. Pacell, who was
watching the rear of the house, had not seen anyone leave through the back door. Mrs.
Parrott eventually exited the house along with two adult males and three juveniles. None
of these individuals had a gun. Mrs. Parrott falsely told the officers that nobody
1
On November 20, 2009, the District Court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. On
March 4, 2010, the District Court also denied Defendant’s post-trial motion for a
2
remained inside the house.
Shortly thereafter, Defendant appeared at the top of the staircase inside the house.
Jones and Pacell recognized Defendant as the man they saw earlier holding the shotgun.
Other officers handcuffed Defendant in the house and led him outside. Defendant did not
have a gun.
After the officers took Defendant into custody, Jones and other officers entered the
house to conduct a safety sweep of the premises. Jones cleared the first floor while the
other officers cleared the second floor. Jones then proceeded to clear the basement, and,
during this sweep, her foot struck an object that was underneath a blanket on the concrete
floor. The object made a metallic sound as it struck the concrete, and it had the weight
and length of the gun she had seen Defendant holding earlier. Jones lifted the blanket
and saw the same gun.
Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the gun based on alleged violations of
his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress
the gun, finding that the search was justified by the exigent circumstances and protective
sweep exceptions to the warrant requirement. Defendant, who was previously convicted
of a felony, was tried before a jury, convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), and sentenced to 262 months in prison. Defendant
appealed. 2
judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, or in the alternative, a new trial under
Rule 33, which was premised on suppressing the gun.
2
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have
appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3
We review a District Court’s denial of a suppression motion for clear error as to
the underlying facts, but we conduct a plenary review as to its legality with respect to the
District Court’s properly found facts. See United States v. Coles, 437 F.3d 361, 365 (3d
Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 458 (3d Cir. 2003)).
Although the search of a home is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth
Amendment, a warrantless search and seizure is reasonable if probable cause and exigent
circumstances exist. See Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 638 (2002). Exigent
circumstances are found where “the need for effective law enforcement trumps the right
of privacy and the requirement of a search warrant.” Coles, 437 F.3d at 366 (citing
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298-99 (1967)). “Examples of exigent circumstances
include, but are not limited to, hot pursuit of a suspected felon, the possibility that
evidence may be removed or destroyed, and danger to the lives of officers or others.” Id.
Courts must review the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the law
enforcement officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that exigent
circumstances existed at the time of the search. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398,
403-04 (2006).
Here, the officers had probable cause and an objectively reasonable basis for
believing that exigent circumstances existed at the time that they searched the house. 3
The officers’ belief was based on a number of facts, including: the missing shotgun that
had been taken into the house; the report of shots being fired and the reasonable inference
3
Because we hold that the officers’ search was valid under the exigent circumstances
exception to the Fourth Amendment, we need not reach the protective sweep analysis.
4
that the person who ran into the house with a gun was the shooter; Mrs. Parrott’s false
statements regarding the number of people in the house; and the officers’ reasonable
belief that if somebody remained inside the house, that person might attempt to hide,
destroy or remove the shotgun, or use it against the officers. 4 The District Court
conducted a hearing on Defendant’s motion to suppress and rendered a well-reasoned
written decision denying the motion.
Accordingly, we will affirm.
4
Defendant also argues that the trial testimony of Pacell, who wasn’t called to testify at
the suppression hearing, contradicted the suppression hearing testimony of Jones and
required a reversal of the District Court’s finding that Jones was credible. The District
Court did not err in crediting Jones’s testimony because the alleged inconsistencies
related to peripheral matters that were not material to the suppression ruling.
5