State v. Serrano

Under State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185 (2018), individual privacy interests prevent the state from using evidence outside the scope of the original warrant.

Defendant appealed a conviction of various counts of sexual abuse, using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, and encouraging child sexual abuse. Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and the trial court’s denial of his motion to sever. Defendant had a warrant issued against him because he uploaded sexually explicit materials online of an 18-19-year-old woman against her consent, and during the execution of the warrant the police learned that he had videos of a 17-year-old woman on his phone. Defendant argued that that portions of the first warrant allowed for a search that was not adequately specific and the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Individual privacy interests prevent the state from using evidence outside the scope of the original warrant.  State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185 (2018). The Court reasoned that because the first warrant specified in detail, the videos to be recovered as evidence of sodomy and rape, the evidence bookmarked by an investigator was unrelated to the first warrant.  The Court held that the evidence from the first warrant could not be the basis for the second warrant. REVERSED AND REMANDED.