State of Oregon v. Mansor

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 07-27-2016
  • Case #: A153124
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, S.J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; & Tookey, J.

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, to satisfy the particularity requirement the warrant must first describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized and examined that officers can ascertain with reasonable certainty that place and those items. Second, the warrant must, to the extent reasonably possible, be drawn in such a way as to preclude seizures and searches not supported by probable cause.

Defendant appealed a conviction for several offenses, which included murder by abuse of his infant son. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress on the basis that the search warrant authorizing the seizure and forensic examination of his home computer was overbroad. The Court of Appeals agreed that the warrant was invalid for violating the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9 and the motion to suppress should have been granted. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search

Back to Top