State v. Rose

A warrant must be specific enough to allow an officer to identify with reasonable effort the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Under the Johnson framework, "the defendant has the initial burden to establish a minimal factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence."

The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that a 2011 search of his cellphone was unlawful due to the search warrant’s failure to specify the evidence being sought. He argued this lack of specificity warranted suppression of the evidence obtained from that search. Additionally, the defendant challenged a 2019 warrant to search the SD card in the cellphone, asserting that it was inadmissible because it was based on the allegedly invalid 2011 warrant, thus tainting the 2019 search. Under the Oregon Constitution, “a warrant must be specific enough to allow an officer to identify with reasonable effort the place to be searched and the items to be seized.” Under the Johnson framework, "the defendant has the initial burden to establish a minimal factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence." The Court found that the 2011 warrant did not satisfy the heightened particularity requirement and thus, the defendant had established a minimal nexus between the 2011 unlawful search and the evidence obtained in 2019. The Court reasoned that the 2019 warrant was tainted by the previous illegality, and the evidence obtained from it should be suppressed. The Court held that the trial court had erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. Reversed and remanded.