State v. Lee
A warrant application satisfies the requirement in ORS 133.545(6) when it “particularly sets forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places . . . to be searched.”
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
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).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Haley
Under ORS 164.205(1), a “separate unit” is determined by its structure, occupancy, function, layout, and appearance within a building.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law