State v. Hargrove

“[A] warrant to search a digital device ‘must identify, as specifically as reasonably possible in the circumstances, the information to be searched for . . .’” State v. Mansor, 421 P.3d 323, 326 (2018) (quoting Or. Const. art. 1, § 9).

Defendant appealed convictions for murder (Count 1), identity theft, and second-degree theft, with seventeen assignments of error regarding Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued, in part, that warrants authorizing seizure of his digital devices failed the “particularity requirement,” and digital evidence recovered should not be permitted under the plain view exception. The State argued the search warrants and admission of evidence were proper, but even if not, the resulting error was harmless. “[A] warrant to search a digital device ‘must identify, as specifically as reasonably possible in the circumstances, the information to be searched for . . .’” State v. Mansor, 421 P.3d 323, 326 (2018) (quoting Or. Const. art. 1, § 9). The Court found that the warrant’s command to seize “communications between any and all” named persons failed to satisfy the particularity requirement under Article 1, section 9. The Court reasoned that because the command did not provide the category or subject matter of the information sought, it was not sufficiently limited. The Court further reasoned that limiting “the governmental intrusion into a defendant’s privacy interests” barred the plain view exception from applying to a search of Defendant’s digital devices. The Court could not say admission of this evidence did not improperly influence the verdict, especially given “the state’s circumstantial case.” The Court rejected Defendant’s assignments of error regarding searches of physical locations, evidence from third-parties, and limited use of hearsay. Conviction on Count 1 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.