from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cr-80054-KAM-1
ED CARNES, Chief Judge, FAY, and PARKER, [*] Circuit Judges.
CARNES, CHIEF JUDGE:
nine-day trial, a jury found Dontavious Blake and Tara Jo
Moore guilty of child sex trafficking for managing a
prostitution ring involving at least two girls under the age
of eighteen. Blake and Moore challenge numerous rulings the
district court made before and during trial, and at
and Moore had a system for running their prostitution ring.
One of them would post ads for prostitution services on the
classifieds website Backpage. Moore would then take phone
calls from potential customers who were responding to the
ads. And Blake would give the prostitutes rides to their
appointments and provide muscle. The money was split 50/50
between the working prostitute on the one hand and Blake and
Moore on the other.
a variety of leads, the FBI discovered Blake and Moore's
prostitution ring. It learned that the Backpage ads had been
posted using an email address (hereafter the "S.B. email
address"), which the FBI determined belonged to Moore.
And it found out that at least two girls, known as T.H. and
E.P., had been under the age of eighteen when they engaged in
prostitution for Blake and Moore.
wake of those discoveries, the FBI arrested Blake and Moore.
It continued the investigation, executing four post-arrest
search warrants relevant to this appeal. First, it executed a
warrant to seize and search electronics in Blake and
Moore's townhouse, including an "Apple iPad tablet[
]." Once in possession of that iPad tablet, however, the
FBI found itself unable to access any of the device's
data due to its security features. So the FBI requested and
received a district court order, issued under the All Writs
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), requiring the iPad's
manufacturer, Apple Inc., to assist the FBI in bypassing the
iPad's passcode lock and other security measures. With
Apple's help, the FBI was able to successfully unlock the
device and download its data.
second relevant search warrant the FBI executed directed
Microsoft, which owns Hotmail, to turn over emails from two
of Blake and Moore's email accounts, including the S.B.
email account. The Microsoft warrant did not seek all emails
in those two email accounts; instead, it was limited to
certain categories of emails in them that were linked to the
sex trafficking charges against Blake and Moore. For example,
the warrant required Microsoft to turn over all
"[e]mails, correspondence, and contact information for
Backpage.com" and all "[e]mails and correspondence
from online adult services websites" that were contained
within the two email accounts.
the FBI also applied for and received two almost identical
search warrants for Moore's Facebook account. Because
that account was associated with the S.B. email address and
Moore's phone number, the FBI knew it belonged to her. At
the time it executed the Facebook warrants, the FBI had
extensive evidence linking Moore to the prostitution ring,
including statements by T.H. inculpating her. And Moore's
Facebook account was suggestive of criminal conduct: the
publicly viewable version of the account listed Moore's
occupation as "Boss Lady" at "Tricks R
warrants required Facebook to "disclose" to the
government virtually every type of data that could be located
in a Facebook account, including every private instant
message Moore had ever sent or received, every IP address she
had ever logged in from,  every photograph she had ever uploaded or
been "tagged" in, every private or public group she
had ever been a member of, every search on the website she
had ever conducted, and every purchase she had ever made
through "Facebook Marketplace, " as well as her
entire contact list. The disclosures were not limited to data
from the period of time during which Moore managed the
prostitution ring; one warrant asked for all data "from
the period of the creation of the account" and the other
did not specify what period of time was requested. The
warrants did state that the only information that would be
"seized, " after all that data had been
"disclosed" to the FBI, was data that
"constitute[d] fruits, evidence and
instrumentalities" of a specified crime.
the execution of those four warrants, a third superseding
indictment charged Blake and Moore with six violations of 18
U.S.C. § 1591: substantive child sex trafficking of T.H.
(Count 1); substantive child sex trafficking of E.P. (Count
2); conspiracy to sex traffic children -- T.H. and E.P.
(Count 3); two substantive counts of sex trafficking adults
by coercion (Counts 4 and 5); and one count of conspiracy to
sex traffic by coercion (Count 6).
and Moore filed several pre-trial motions relevant to this
appeal. Moore moved to sever Counts 1 through 3, which
involved sex trafficking of children, from Counts 4 through
6, which involved sex trafficking of adults by coercion.
Blake and Moore moved to suppress evidence obtained from the
iPad. And they moved to suppress all the evidence gathered as
a result of the search warrants served on Microsoft and
Facebook. The district court denied all of those motions.
Trial and Sentencing
trial T.H. testified about her time prostituting for Blake
and Moore, starting when she was sixteen years old. To
explain why she turned to prostitution, T.H. described her
difficult upbringing. She explained that her great uncle had
sexually abused her when she was between the ages of five and
eight. During that same period, her parents separated, her
father left her life, and her mother fell into a deep
depression, leaving T.H.'s older sister to raise her.
That older sister was a drug addict who physically abused
testified as well. She stated that she called Blake after she
found his business card and started prostituting for him soon
thereafter. She was sixteen when she started - young enough
that Blake had to buy her cigarettes. On cross examination
she admitted that she saw Moore only six times "at
most." One of those times was when Moore spent about
twenty minutes taking pictures of her for a Backpage ad.
government also called Khrystyna Trejo, an adult prostitute
who had spent time working alongside T.H. and E.P. She
testified that, although E.P. had told her that she was
eighteen, E.P.'s way of "approach[ing] certain
things" and her interest in children's television
shows made her seem "younger than what . . . she said
addition to testimony related solely to the child sex
trafficking charges, the government called several witnesses
in an attempt to prove its theory that Blake and Moore
"coerced" adult prostitutes by controlling their
drug supply, evidence that went to Counts 4 through 6.
Several adult prostitutes testified both to the general
structure of the prostitution ring and the fact that almost
all the money the prostitutes made was immediately spent
buying drugs from Blake. The government also called an
addiction expert who testified about the physical and
neurological characteristics of drug dependency and
close of the government's case in chief, the district
court granted Blake and Moore's motion for a judgment of
acquittal on the adult sex trafficking by coercion charges
(Counts 4 through 6), after finding that the government had
not proven the "coercion" element of the offense.
The court instructed the jury not to "draw any
conclusions or inferences one way or the other because
[Counts 4 through 6] are no longer involved in the
and Moore did not present any evidence of their own. The jury
found them guilty of the remaining charges - two substantive
counts of child sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy
to sex traffic children, and the district court entered
judgment of conviction on those counts.
applying a number of enhancements, the district court
sentenced Blake to 324 months imprisonment, followed by
supervised release for a term of life. And it sentenced Moore
to 180 months imprisonment followed by 240 months supervised
Severance of Charges
and Moore first challenge the district court's denial of
their motion to sever the child sex trafficking charges from
the sex trafficking by coercion charges. We review the denial
of a motion to sever charges only for an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Barsoum, 763 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th
Cir. 2014). We will not reverse the district court's
decision unless Blake and Moore "demonstrate that [they]
received an unfair trial and suffered compelling
prejudice." United States v. Slaughter, 708
F.3d 1208, 1213 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).
a "heavy" burden, id., and Blake and Moore
have not carried it. First of all, a significant part of the
testimony underlying the sex trafficking by coercion charges
was also relevant to the child sex trafficking charges. For
example, in closing arguments Blake's counsel argued that
the only T.H. Backpage ad presented at trial was posted under
the category of "body rubs" (as opposed to under
the "escorts" category), indicating that T.H. had
not engaged in prostitution. But given the testimony of some
of the adult prostitutes that Blake and Moore generally used
Backpage to advertise prostitution, the jury could have
inferred that the T.H. ad was actually for commercial sex
acts, whatever category it was posted under. Similarly, the
testimony of the adult prostitutes that Moore handled
interactions with customers undermined her argument that she
was not a co- manager of the conspiracy. Because much of the
evidence presented in connection with the sex trafficking by
coercion charges could have been and likely would have been
presented even if the trial had involved only the child sex
trafficking charges, Blake and Moore did not suffer
"compelling prejudice" from having the charges
and Moore argue that, even if the evidence was generally
relevant to both sets of charges, the inflammatory nature of
the sex trafficking by coercion charges resulted in
compelling prejudice. We disagree. Sex trafficking by
coercion is an abhorrent crime, but so is child sex
trafficking. And there is no compelling prejudice where both
sets of charges are inflammatory. See United States v.
Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding
that there was no compelling prejudice where "a
reasonable jury undoubtedly would have found both
the evidence of [the defendant's] child molestation and
the evidence of [his] child pornography very
inflammatory"). The district court's denial of Blake
and Moore's motion to sever was not an abuse of
and Moore next contend that the order requiring Apple to
assist in bypassing the iPad's security features - what
we will call the "bypass order" - exceeded the
authority granted by the All Writs Act. As a threshold
matter, we must address whether Blake and Moore have standing
to make this challenge. They satisfy the three requirements
of constitutional standing because they "(1) suffered an
injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct . . . and (3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo
v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016).
Specifically, they were injured because the evidence gathered
as a result of the bypass order was used to convict them.
That injury is fairly traceable to the government's
request for and the district court's issuance of the
bypass order. And if a ...