State v. Vesa

A valid warrant must “describe with specificity the information related to the alleged criminal conduct which there is probable cause to believe will be found on the electronic device”. State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185, 218 (2018).

 Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to deny the defendant’s two motions to suppress. While searching defendant’s phone under the first search warrant, police discovered explicit underage material. This prompted the second search warrant to obtain evidence related to the underage photographs and videos stored on phone. On appeal, defendant asserts that evidence obtained from the phone should be suppressed because the second warrant was derived from the first warrant, which did not comply with Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. A valid warrant must “describe with specificity the information related to the alleged criminal conduct which there is probable cause to believe will be found on the electronic device”. State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185, 218 (2018). File types and file locations are not sufficient. State v. Savath, 298 Or. App. 495, 500 (2019). The Court determined that the initial warrant was excessively broad and lacked the necessary specificity by failing to clearly define the scope of the authorized search for the defendant’s photographs and videos. The second warrant, being a derivative of the first, thus was also invalid. The Court held that the trial court erred in denying both motions to suppress. Reversed and remanded.