State v. Cannon

Search warrants which authorize the search of electronic devices are overbroad and invalid unless there is probable cause to support the search of each device. State v. Burnham, 287 Or App 661, 403 P3d 466 (2017); State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016). Officer training and experience may go towards creating the requisite probable cause if they are connected to “the facts of . . . [the] particular case.” Fridde, 281 Or App at 140.

The State appealed the trial court’s pretrial order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of child pornography recovered in a search, authorized by a warrant, of Defendant’s electronic devices. The State assigned error to the trial court’s determination that the search warrant was overbroad, making it invalid. On appeal, the State argued the warrant was not overbroad because the officer’s training and experience, combined with the facts alleged in the affidavit to the search warrant, established there was probable cause to believe any of Defendant’s electronic devices would contain child pornography. In response, Defendant argued there was no probable cause because there was no specific evidence or officer knowledge to provide a reason to think that “[D]efendant possessed those devices [listed in the warrant] or that evidence would be found on them.” State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616, 625 (2019). Search warrants which authorize the search of electronic devices are overbroad and invalid unless there is probable cause to support the search of each device. State v. Burnham, 287 Or App 661, 403 P3d 466 (2017); State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016). Officer training and experience may go towards creating the requisite probable cause if they are connected to “the facts of . . . [the] particular case.” Fridde, 281 Or App at 140. The Court held the search warrant to be overbroad and invalid because, at most, the record showed there was only probable cause for one cell phone and the HP laptop. Additionally, the Court determined the officer’s statements were too general and did not show that each device was likely to contain evidence. Affirmed