State v. Savath

"The warrant must be sufficiently specific in describing the items to be seized and examined that the officers can, with reasonable effort, ascertain those items to a reasonable degree of certainty. . .[and] it must not authorize a search that is broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.” State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 212 (2018).

Defendant appealed a conviction for possession of methamphetamine, delivery of methamphetamine, possession of oxycodone, delivery of oxycodone, and driving while suspended. Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in his cell phone. On appeal, Defendant argued the warrant to search his cell phone was invalid because it was insufficiently particular. Defendant asserted that the warrant failed to specifically identify the object of the search authorized because the underlying affidavit did not provide probable cause for the full search. In response, the State argued that because only the search of Defendant's text messages produced any incriminating evidence, the Court must evaluate the warrant as though it had only authorized a search of such messages and drafts that would be related to controlled substances offenses. “The warrant must be sufficiently specific in describing the items to be seized and examined that the officers can, with reasonable effort, ascertain those items to a reasonable degree of certainty. . .[and] it must not authorize a search that is broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.” State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 212 (2018). The Court held that the terms of the warrant regarding the information to collect from the cellphone was too vague to inform the executing officer of what information on the cellphone was or was not subject to the warrant. Reversed and remanded in part, otherwise affirmed.