State v. Kauppi

Under Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 133.565, an otherwise adequately descriptive warrant is not rendered in violation of the particularity requirement because it contains a clerical error if: (1) the executing officer had personal knowledge of that error, and (2) made the "reasonable effort" of drawing upon that knowledge to, in effect, correct the clerical error.

At trial, defendant was convicted pursuant to a conditional guilty plea of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII), under ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant argued the incorrect statement of defendant's name rendered the warrant in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 133.565(2)(b) because the warrant was not sufficiently particularized in its description, and therefore, the evidence obtained by the executing officer should be suppressed. Defendant was stopped for unlawful sound amplification and an unsignaled turn. He appeared lethargic, had blood shot eyes, and smelled of alcohol. The arresting officer obtained a telephonic warrant to take two blood samples from defendant. The warrant identified defendant by the wrong first and middle names, however, it listed defendant's last name and date of birth correctly. The officer became aware of this error (which he inadvertently caused) prior to the execution of that warrant. The Court of Appeals determined the warrant was sufficient and the evidence obtained by the executing officer was admissible because the executing officer became aware of the error prior to the warrant's execution, and used personal knowledge to remedy the incorrect information in warrant. Affirmed.