State v. Cantrell

“Where a search warrant authorizes the search of multiple electronic devices, the supporting affidavit must supply probable cause ‘for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched.’” State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616, 629 (2019). “Article I, section 9 [of the Oregon Constitution], requires that probable cause exist for each device authorized to be searched in a warrant.” Id. at 632.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual assault after a father reported that his two daughters disclosed that Appellant had sexually touched them. During an interview, one girl disclosed that Appellant had taken photos of her unclothed genitals and clothed buttocks. Police obtained a warrant to search Appellant’s cellphone, iPad, laptops, keyboard, and digital camera, along with “any and all storage devices foe these electronic devices.” Before trial, Appellant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search pursuant to that warrant. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Appellant asserted that although there was probable cause to believe he took unlawful photos and videos of the victims, there were not sufficient facts laid out in the warrant affidavit “to establish probable cause to search each and every device identified in the warrant,” and thus the warrant was overbroad. “Where a search warrant authorizes the search of multiple electronic devices, the supporting affidavit must supply probable cause ‘for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched.’” State v. Cannon, 299 Or App 616, 629 (2019). “Article I, section 9 [of the Oregon Constitution], requires that probable cause exist for each device authorized to be searched in a warrant.” Id. at 632. The Court reasoned that there were no facts presented in the warrant affidavit that made it more likely than not that any evidence of a crime would be found on the devices other than the phone and camera. Thus, the Court held that the “the warrant at issue was overbroad in violation of Article I, section 9.” The Court did not reach Appellant’s unpreserved argument that the warrant was not sufficiently particular. Reversed and remanded.