NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 19-3545
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTHONY TAYLOR,
Appellant
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No. 2-18-cr-00093-001)
District Judge: Hon. Arthur J. Schwab
Argued: March 11, 2021
Before: Smith, McKee, Ambro, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: May 18, 2021)
____________________
OPINION*
____________________
Keith M. Donoghue [ARGUED]
Federal Community Defender Office for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
601 Walnut Street
The Curtis Center, Suite 540 West
Philadelphia, PA19106
Counsel for Appellant
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Donovan J. Cocas [ARGUED]
Laura S. Irwin
Office of United States Attorney
700 Grant Street
Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel for Appellee
McKee, Circuit Judge.
Anthony Taylor claims the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress
and failing to sua sponte exclude testimony from multiple witnesses.1 For the following
reasons, we will affirm.
I.
Taylor challenges the scope of the search warrant which permitted seizure of
“[a]ny and all cellular telephones utilized in the furtherance of” drug trafficking
operations.2 We review the District Court’s denial of the motion to suppress under a
mixed standard, reviewing the law de novo and facts for clear error.3
Under the Fourth Amendment, warrants shall only be issued upon a showing of
probable cause.4 Warrants must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”5 A warrant must be particular so as to prevent
1
Appellant’s Br. at 17-19.
2
Id. at 20; Joint Appendix at 34.
3
United States v. Lewis, 672 F.3d 232, 236-37 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing United States v.
Tracey, 597 F.3d 140, 146 (3d Cir. 2010)).
4
U.S. Const. Amend. IV.
5
Id.
2
authorization of “a general exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.”6 However,
even if a warrant is deemed overbroad, the exclusionary rule may not apply where “an
officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge or
magistrate and acted within its scope.”7 In analyzing the totality of the circumstances,
good faith must take into account both the defects of the warrant as well as “the officer’s
conduct in obtaining and executing the warrant and what the officer knew or should have
known.”8 Good faith will not apply where the officer’s conduct was “deliberate, reckless,
or grossly negligent,” and thus “the benefits of deterring future misconduct ‘outweigh the
costs’ of excluding the evidence.”9
Taylor contends that the description of “any and all cellular telephones” contained
in this warrant is overly broad and thus lacks the requisite particularity. 10 Although a
warrant allowing seizure of “any and all cellular telephones” may be overbroad, this
record supports a finding that the warrant was obtained and executed in good faith. The
agent knew that Taylor had used cellphones in brokering controlled purchases of
heroin,11 and that multiple cellphones are often used in drug trafficking operations.12
6
United States v. Yusuf, 461 F.3d 374, 393 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Coolidge v. New
Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 (1971)).
7
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920 (1984).
8
United States v. Franz, 772 F.3d 134, 147 (3d Cir. 2014).
9
Id. (quoting United States v. Tracey, 597 F.3d 140, 151 (3d Cir. 2010)).
10
Appellant’s Br. at 17.
11
Id. at 27-28.
12
See id. at 31 (where the investigating agent asserts that, in his training and experience,
“mobile telephones are an essential part of the drug trafficking business” and “drug
traffickers often have more than one mobile telephone and/or mobile telephone number in
order to make it more difficult for law enforcement to detect their illegal activities.”).
3
Based on this knowledge, the agent obtained a warrant for cellphones, and only two
cellphones were seized from Taylor’s home.13 The conduct of the officers in obtaining
and executing the warrant was objectively reasonable, and thus the good faith exception
applies.
II.
Taylor also asserts that the evidence custodian’s testimony regarding extraction
and examination of the smart phone data was admitted in violation of Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 16 and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.14 We review this unpreserved
claim for plain error.15
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows qualified experts to testify to “scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge.”16 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16
requires pretrial notice of intended expert testimony at the defendant’s request.17
The evidence custodian testified about the extraction of cellphone data via
Cellebrite technology and examination of usernames, browser search history, and other
information obtained in that process.18 According to his uncontradicted testimony, the
witness simply ran a computer “app” to extract the information and generate a report.19
13
Joint Appendix at 38.
14
Appellant’s Br. at 35.
15
Id. at 2; United States v. Andrews, 681 F.3d 509, 517 (3d Cir. 2012).
16
Fed. R. Evid. 702(a).
17
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G).
18
Joint Appendix at 632-46.
19
Id. at 671.
4
He also testified without contradiction that “[t]his report I’m able to duplicate just as easy
as anybody else.”20 We therefore find no plain error.
To the extent the custodian testified as to the accuracy of the process or its
interpretations using specialized knowledge outside the report, any error was either
invited by Taylor or harmless because Taylor did not contend that the report inaccurately
represented the phone contents. Again, there is no plain error.
III.
Finally, Taylor contends that the District Court erred in admitting hearsay
statements from unidentified declarants regarding his possible engagement in interstate
drug purchases.21 We also review this unpreserved claim for plain error.22 Thus, Taylor
bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was not harmless.23 An error is not
harmless if it affects the appellant’s substantial rights, thus affecting the outcome of the
district court proceedings.24
The two cooperating witnesses testified that they were told that Taylor traveled to
Detroit to purchase drugs.25 We agree that this testimony was inadmissible hearsay, and
that the District Court erred in admitting the statements. However, even absent this
testimony, there was overwhelming evidence of Taylor’s drug trafficking. That evidence
20
Id. at 633.
21
Appellant’s Br. at 50.
22
Id. at 3; Andrews, 681 F.3d at 517.
23
Andrews, 681 F.3d at 521 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)).
24
Id. (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 734).
25
Joint Appendix at 498-99, 606-07.
5
included Taylor’s own statements that he took trips similar to those described in the
inadmissible hearsay.26
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction.
26
Id. at 744-47.
6