State v. Meyers

Probable cause must exist for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched. State v. Cannon, 299 Or App at 626, 629 450 P3d 567 (2019)

The defendant appealed his conviction. The defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from warranted searches. Defendant argued the digital and truck warrant was overbroad and insufficiently specific under the state constitution’s particularity requirement. The State responded that the facts in the affidavit established probable cause to search the devices was sufficiently specific. Probable cause must exist for each device that a warrant authorizes to be searched. State v. Cannon, 299 Or App at 626, 629 450 P3d 567 (2019). The Court reasoned that the affidavit did not rise to the level of probable cause to search the truck because it failed to establish that the defendant owned the devices other than a singular cell phone. Additionally, the Court reasoned that the digital warrant was not overbroad because the affidavit established probable cause of evidence would be found on the phones and these phones sufficiently were a defined group of devices. Because the warrants had both valid and invalid commands and the parties were unable to establish a record under an appropriate standard the Court remands back to the trial court to apply the correct framework. Reversed and Remanded.