State v. Rose

Under ORS 136.583, a search warrant issued in Oregon can be executed in another state so long as the criminal matter is triable in Oregon and “exercise of jurisdiction over the recipient is not inconsistent with the Oregon Constitution or Constitution of the United States.”

Defendant appealed his conviction of using a child in display of sexually explicit conduct pursuant to ORS 163.67, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The sixteen year old victim, who had been conversing with Defendant over social media, sent topless photos of herself to Defendant via email. Polk County Sherriff’s Department was given a search warrant for Defendant's Yahoo email account. Defendant first argued that the trial court lacked authority to issue a search warrant that would be executed in California. The State argued that the statute was enacted for the very purpose of obtaining electronic information from other states. This Court agreed, discussing the Stored Communications Act (SCA)(18 USC 2701-2712) and Oregon state legislative history showing that ORS 136.583 was enacted in accordance with SCA. Defendant’s second argument is that the warrant was “insufficiently particular” in that the warrant authorized too broad of a search and seizure. This Court disagreed with Defendant's contention, saying that the particularity requirement’s purpose is to avoid “undue rummaging” and because the warrant states a specific Yahoo account, being a specific place, and what was specifically being searched for, the warrant was sufficiently particular. Affirmed.