State v. J.C.L.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-26-2014
  • Case #: A147132
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J., for the Court; Wollheim, J.; & Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A warrantless seizure of a youth's computer and hard drive can be justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.

JCL appeals a judgment determining that he is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute first-degree and second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse. JCL argued that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his computer without a warrant, and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The Court held that the juvenile court did not err in concluding that a warrantless seizure of youth's computer and hard drive was justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, based on JCL's request for a computer repairman to delete the hard drive his uncle's related arrest. The Court of Appeals did not consider JCL's unpreserved contention that the juvenile court committed a plain error in denying JCL's motion to suppress due to the eight-day delay between the seizure of the computer and the issuance of a warrant to search the computer. The Court found the lack of development of a factual record regarding reasons for the delay determinative. The Court further found that the juvenile court did not err in denying JCL's motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to determine that JCL knowingly possessed images of child pornography and that he intended to either duplicate or to display the pornographic images. Affirmed.

Advanced Search