United States of America v. Paul Edward Parnell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL EDWARD PARNELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-30208
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00030-BLW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2016
Portland, Oregon
Before: FISHER, BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
For the reasons stated in a concurrently filed opinion, we vacate Parnell’s
sentence and remand for resentencing. As relevant here, we find no error in the
district court’s decision denying Parnell’s motion to suppress the evidence seized
from his residence pursuant to a search warrant issued on the strength of an
FILED
APR 12 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

affidavit furnished by Detective Matthew Gonzales. We therefore affirm Parnell’s
conviction.
First, the district court did not clearly err in finding that none of the alleged
misstatements or omissions were intentionally or recklessly made. See United
States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 714 (9th Cir. 2003). Second, reviewing de novo, we
hold the district court did not err in concluding the alleged misstatements and
omissions were immaterial to the state magistrate judge’s determination of
probable cause. See id. Although the detective’s affidavit was based solely on the
tips of two informants, those tips were sufficiently reliable because they were
based on the informants’ personal observations and independently corroborated
one another. See United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 919, 924-25 (9th Cir. 2001); cf.
United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Even if the
reliability of a confidential source is not clearly established, the credibility of the
statement is ‘enhanced’ when the statement gives a detailed account of events that
is corroborated by the statements of other confidential informants.”). Both
informants also made admissions against their penal interests. See Bishop, 264
F.3d at 925. Viewed cumulatively, the alleged misstatements and omissions would
not have fatally undermined the informants’ credibility or otherwise caused the
magistrate judge to conclude there was no fair probability that evidence of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

methamphetamine crimes would be found at Parnell’s home. Finally, Parnell’s
contention the investigating officers “laundered the information for the search
warrant” by having Detective Gonzales prepare the affidavit is not supported by
the record.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --