State v. Reger

ORS 133.565(2)(c) requires that a search warrant, among other things, must state, or describe with particularity “[t]he things constituting the object of the search and authorized to be seized.”

Following a conviction of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and assault, Defendant appealed the trail courts decision to deny her motion of acquittal and her motion to suppress evidence. The issue on appeal was whether the State produced sufficient evidence of Defendant’s participation in the crime. Prior to trial Defendant moved to excluded any evidence involving the carpet/rugs of her home because they “were not specifically identified in the search warrant.” The trial court denied Defendant’s motion reasoning the search warrant gave the authority to search the entire home, and justified the seizure of the rugs and shampoo device. Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution provides that no search warrant “shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.” ORS 133.565(2)(c) requires that a search warrant, among other things, must state, or describe with particularity “[t]he things constituting the object of the search and authorized to be seized.” A warrant can be broad and still sufficiently particular. The Court ultimately held that there was sufficient evidence to find the conviction and that the search warrant was adequate and thus agreed with the trial courts denial of the motion to suppress. Affirmed.