State v. Mansor

“A warrant must be sufficiently specific in describing the items to be seized and examined that the officers can, ‘with reasonable effort ascertain’ those items to a ‘reasonable degree of certainty.’ Blackburn/Barber, 266 Or at 35. But, even if the warrant is sufficiently specific, it must not authorize a search that is ‘broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.’ State v. Reid, 319 Or 65, 71, 872 P2d 416 (1994).”

The State appealed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of defendant’s convictions. The State argued that the Court of Appeals improperly overturned the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. In response, defendant argued that the State’s search warrant did not satisfy the particularity requirement of Article I Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and thus was not broad enough to justify the search of his entire computer. “A warrant must be sufficiently specific in describing the items to be seized and examined that the officers can, ‘with reasonable effort ascertain’ those items to a ‘reasonable degree of certainty.’ Blackburn/Barber, 266 Or at 35. But, even if the warrant is sufficiently specific, it must not authorize a search that is ‘broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.’ State v. Reid, 319 Or 65, 71, 872 P2d 416 (1994). The Supreme Court held that the search warrant did not satisfy the particularity requirement. Affirmed.