- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 03-31-2021
- Case #: A169480
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Kamins J. for the court; Kistler. S. Concur
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed eight separate convictions: three counts of attempted aggravated murder with a firearm, one count of attempted murder with a firearm, one count of assault in the second degree, and one count of felon in possession of a firearm. The two remaining convictions were not addressed by the court. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence, a photo of a gun, was obtained outside the confines of the warrant, and therefore, the State could not establish that he was in possession of the weapon. The State responded that as the plain view doctrine permitted the admission of the photo discovered outside of the scope of the electronic search warrant as the warrant did not have the “specificity” as required under Article I, Section 9. The plain view doctrine does not apply to digital searches because “electronic devices contain ‘unprecedented’ amounts of personal information, and, unlike physical searches, searches of electronic devices require examination of at least some information that is beyond the scope of the warrant.” State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 208, 220, 421 P3d 323 (2018). Accordingly, the Court found that the trial court erred in admitting the photo of the weapon. Reversed and remanded on all convictions aside from burglary in the first degree and interference with a peace officer.