State v. Ritter

Under State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616 (2019), probable cause to search one device for child pornography does not categorically extend to other devices owned by the same individual.

Defendant appealed conviction on multiple counts of encouraging child sexual abuse (ECSA) in the first and second degree; online sexual corruption of a child; and luring a minor. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that the warrant to seize and search all of his cell phones, computers, and other electronics lacked probable cause as it was “insufficiently particular.” The state argued that because there was probable cause to search one of Defendant’s devices for evidence of child pornography, it was permissible to search all his devices. Under State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616 (2019), probable cause to search one device for child pornography does not categorically extend to other devices owned by the same individual. The Court found that probable cause must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Court determined that no “specific and articulable facts” established probable cause to search devices other than Defendant’s cell phone. The Court stated that the trial court should have excluded the evidence “found during searches conducted pursuant to the overbroad portions of the warrant.” Reversed and remanded.