N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. AUB R EY TAYLOR , AKA Uno,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 19-30105

19-30162 D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00300-R SL-1
M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2020 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R and W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd FREUDENTHAL, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nt Aubre y Ta y lor tim e ly

a ppe a ls his c onvic tions for onec ount of
c onspira c y

to e nga ge in se x tra ffic king of a m inor, in viola

t ion of 18 U.S.C
. §§ 1591(a )(1) and 1594(c ) (C ount One ); one c ount of se x tra ffic king of a m inor 

# FIL ED NOV 4 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Na nc y D. Fre ude ntha l, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of W

y om ing, sitting by

de signa tion.through forc e , fra ud, or c oe rc i on, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1591(a )(1), (b)(1),
and (b)(2) (C ount Two); a nd thre e c ounts of se x tra ffic king of a n a dult by forc e , fraud, or c oe rc ion in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1591(a )(1) an d (b)(1) (C o unts Thre e , Four, a nd Five ). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c at e the c o nvic tions on C ounts 1 a nd 2, a nd
re m and. 1. W e re vie wde novo thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of De fe nda nt’ s m o tion to suppre ss the c onte nts of his c e ll phoneand whe the r the gove rnm e n t’ s de la y in
se e k ing a wa rrant to se arc h the phone wa s c o n stitutiona lly re a sona ble . Unite d Stat e s v. Da ss, 849 F.2d 414, 415 (9th C ir. 1988). Thedistric t c ourt inc orre c tly de nie d De fe nda

nt’ s m otion to suppre ss. C onside ring the tota lity of the
c irc um s ta nc e s , the gove rnm e nt’ s 14-m onth de la y in obta ining a

wa rran t to se arc h the p hone wa s unjustifia

b ly long a nd c onstitutiona

lly unre a s ona

ble . Unite d State s v. Sulliva n, 797 F.3d 623, 633 (9th C i r. 2015); Unite d State s v. Song Ja C ha , 597 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th C ir. 2010). The e rror wa s not ha

rm le ss be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt a s to C ounts Oneand Two, whic h

involve d H.S., the m inor vic tim . The gove rnm e nt re pe ate dly
e m pha siz e d a

te xt m e ssa ge De fe nda

nt se n t from

the phone at issue to a

rgue tha t he kne w or re c kle ssly

disre g arde d H.S.’ s a ge . Othe r e vide nc e supporting De fe nda nt’ s knowle dge or re c kle ss disre ga rd of H.S.’ s a ge wa s fa irly we a k. The re fore , re ve rsa l 2of De fe nda

nt’ s c onvic tions for se xtra ffic king of a m i nor through forc e , fra

ud, a nd
c oe rc ion a

nd for c onspira c y

to e nga ge in se x tra ffic king of a m inor is re quire d. Ne de r v. Unite d State s, 527 U.S. 1, 7 (1999). 2. W e re v ie w de novo whe the r De fe nda nt volunta

rily wa ive d his rights unde r M iranda

v. Ariz ona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a nd for c le ar e rror whe the r the
wa ive r wa s knowing a

n d inte llige nt. Unite d State s v. C a z are s, 121 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th C ir. 1997). Thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of De fe nda nt’ s m otion to suppre ss his sta t e m e nt m a de while he wa s in the hospita l wa s prope r. C onside ring the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s , De fe nda

n t wa ive d his M iranda

rights volunta

rily , e ve n though hewa s in the hospita l and on m e dic ation a t the tim e . Unite d State s v. Ge orge , 987 F.2d 1428, 1430–31 (9th C ir. 1993). 3. The re w a s no pla in e rror in qua lify ing the FB I a ge nt a s a n e xpe rt. Unite d Stat e s v. M e ndoz a -Pa z , 286 F.3d 1104, 1112–13 (9th C ir. 2002). Thee xpe rt witne s s, who wa s suffic i e ntly qua lifie d, de sc ribe d

he r profe ssiona l e xpe rie nc e with pim ps; she did not discuss the fa c ts of the c a se . Unite d State s v. B ighe a d, 128 F.3d 1329, 1330 (9th C ir. 1997) (pe r c uriam ). Additionally , the witne ss did not opine
on a n ultim a t e le ga l issue and thus did not im pinge on the jury ’ s func tion. Hanga rte r v. Provide n t

Life & Ac c ide n t Ins. C o., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ a witne ss m ay

prope rly be c a lle d upon to aid the jury in unde rsta

n d ing the 3fa c t s in e vide nc e e ve n though re fe re nc e to thosefa c ts is c ouc he d in le ga l te rm s”

(inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d)). Convic tions on Counts O ne and T w o VACAT E D. Convic tions on Counts T hr e e , Four , and Five AFFIRM E D. RE M A NDE D for r e -se nte nc ing
.

4