Blog talk:Main/Search Warrants, Cell Phones and Particularity/c000064 - Revision history

Hershallbrown@gmail.com at 03:26, March 9, 2021

2021-03-09T03:26:56Z

Hershallbrown@gmail.com at 03:26, March 9, 2021

2021-03-09T03:26:32Z

Hershallbrown@gmail.com: New comment by Hershallbrown@gmail.com: Holding in Mansor to meet the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, a warrant to search for and seize a computer—and to search the computer itself for informatio...

2021-03-09T03:25:46Z

New comment by Hershallbrown@gmail.com: Holding in Mansor to meet the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, a warrant to search for and seize a computer—and to search the computer itself for informatio...

New page

Holding in Mansor
to meet the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, a warrant to search for and seize a computer—and to search the computer itself for information related to a crime—must be based on probable cause to believe that such evidence will be found on the computer and must describe the information the state seeks (the "what") with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances, including, if available and relevant, a temporal description of when the information was created, accessed, or otherwise used. As a practical matter, a forensic examination of the computer that reasonably seeks to discover the evidence described in the warrant may reveal evidence that is beyond the scope of the warrant. We also hold that, because of the possibility that a computer search will uncover information that is not authorized by the warrant, a defendant's Article I, section 9, privacy rights prevent the state from using such information unless it comes within an exception to the warrant requirement.
State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185, 222-23 (Or. 2018)(emphasis added)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Holding in Mansor:
-"to meet the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, a warrant to search for and seize a computer—and to search the computer itself for information related to a crime—must be based on probable cause to believe that such evidence will be found on the computer and must describe the information the state seeks (the "what") with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances, including, if available and relevant, a temporal description of when the information was created, accessed, or otherwise used. As a practical matter, a forensic examination of the computer that reasonably seeks to discover the evidence described in the warrant may reveal evidence that is beyond the scope of the warrant. We also hold that, because of the possibility that a computer search will uncover information that is not authorized by the warrant, a defendant's Article I, section 9, privacy rights prevent the state from using such information unless it comes within an exception to the warrant requirement."
+"...to meet the particularity requirement of Article I, section 9, a warrant to search for and seize a computer—and to search the computer itself for information related to a crime—must be based on probable cause to believe that such evidence will be found on the computer and must describe the information the state seeks (the "what") with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances, including, if available and relevant, a temporal description of when the information was created, accessed, or otherwise used. As a practical matter, a forensic examination of the computer that reasonably seeks to discover the evidence described in the warrant may reveal evidence that is beyond the scope of the warrant. We also hold that, because of the possibility that a computer search will uncover information that is not authorized by the warrant, a defendant's Article I, section 9, privacy rights prevent the state from using such information unless it comes within an exception to the warrant requirement."
 State v. Mansor, 363 Or. 185, 222-23 (Or. 2018)(emphasis added)