State v. Serrano

The State requested clarification of the Court’s opinion in State v. Serrano, 324 Or App 453 (2023). Specifically, the State inquired whether the trial court’s opinion disposed of defendant’s second assignment of error which challenged the court’s motion in limine to exclude unrelated material discovered on defendant’s cell phone. The Court stated that the opinion related to both the motion to suppress and motion in limine. The Court held that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion in limine. The Court further clarified that the decision only applied to the evidence discovered during two warranted searches of the defendant's cell phone; additional evidence would require a new motion to suppress. Finally, the Court amended the opinion’s language to clarify the Court’s final conclusion in relation to the motion to suppress, stating that “the denial of the motion to suppress therefore was not harmless, because highly probative evidence used to prove the state’s case came from the nonresponsive material discovered on defendant’s cell phone.” Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified; adhered to as modified.