2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-10-2011

USA v. Phillip Parrott

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1734

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Phillip Parrott" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 233.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/233
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

_____________________ 
2

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

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 

 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. 

 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 
3

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.
4

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

 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.

 

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 
5

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

 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.

 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.