State v. Burnham

Evidence obtained under invalid or overbroad portions of a warrant may be suppressed while evidence obtained under the rest of the warrant may be admissible. State v. Vermaas, 116 Or App 413, 416, 841 P2d 664 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 142 (1993).

State petitioned for reconsideration, requesting the Court to "clarify the scope of [its] holding" in State v. Burnham, 287 Or App 661, 403 P3d 466 (2017). In Burnham, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred when denying Defendant Burnham’s motion to suppress evidence obtained under an impermissibly broad search warrant; however, the Court did not specify what evidence was admissible. Evidence obtained under invalid or overbroad portions of a warrant may be suppressed while evidence obtained under the rest of the warrant may be admissible. State v. Vermaas, 116 Or App 413, 416, 841 P2d 664 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 142 (1993). The Court of Appeals held that State should be heard on whether the evidence of theft, the contested road signs, were obtained in the course of executing the valid portions of the warrant. Reconsideration allowed; former disposition withdrawn; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified; convictions on Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 reversed and remanded; convictions on Counts 8 and 9 vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.