State v. Turay

A warrant for digital data meets the particularity requirement in the Oregon Constitution when it “describe[s] the information the state seeks…with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances” and does “not authorize a search that is broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.” State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 222, 212, 421 P3d 323 (2018). When a defendant “establish[es] a minimal factual nexus between [a constitutional violation] and the challenged evidence” there is a presumption that the challenged evidence be suppressed, which can be rebutted only by establishing “that the challenged evidence was untainted by” the violation. State v. DeJong, 368 Or 640, 642, 497 P3d 710 (2021).

Defendant appealed a conviction for compelling prostitution. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s introduction of evidence found pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant argued that the incriminating information should have been suppressed because the warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement under Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The State argued that the evidence was properly admitted because it fell within the scope of the lawful search categories. A warrant for digital data meets the particularity requirement in the Oregon Constitution when it “describe[s] the information the state seeks…with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances” and does “not authorize a search that is broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.” State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 222, 212, 421 P3d 323 (2018). When a defendant “establish[es] a minimal factual nexus between [a constitutional violation] and the challenged evidence” there is a presumption that the challenged evidence be suppressed, which can be rebutted only by establishing “that the challenged evidence was untainted by” the violation. State v. DeJong, 368 Or 640, 642, 497 P3d 710 (2021). The Court found that five out of nine search categories failed to meet the specificity requirement and therefore, the particularity requirement. The Court found a minimal factual nexus between the constitutional violation and the evidence because the warrant authorized the State to obtain evidence it couldn’t lawfully extract. The Court held that the only evidence the trial court could permit must be “particularly described by a valid search category and discovery during a ‘reasonably executed’ search” or “admissible under an exception to the warrant requirement” under Mansor. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and remanded.