State v. Burnham

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Wildlife Law
  • Date Filed: 09-07-2017
  • Case #: A155709
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The affidavit of a search warrant must substantiate probable cause to search the contents of each individual electronic device included in the warrant. State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016); State v. Mansor, 279 Or App 778, 381 P3d 930 (2016), rev allowed, 360 Or 752 (2017).

Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained as a result of the execution of a search warrant. Defendant argued that the search warrant was overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The affidavit of a search warrant must substantiate probable cause to search the contents of each individual electronic device included in the warrant. State v. Friddle, 281 Or App 130, 381 P3d 979 (2016); State v. Mansor, 279 Or App 778, 381 P3d 930 (2016), rev allowed, 360 Or 752 (2017). The Court of Appeals held the trial court erred because the fish and wildlife officer did not specifically state in the affidavit why each of Defendant’s devices would contain photos of the illegally shot elk originally captured on his cell phone. Reversed.

Advanced Search