Oregon Appellate Court - Jan 10, 2018
Summarized by Sara Werboff, OPDS | Edited by Mary Sofia, OCDLA
SEARCH & SEIZURE
Motion to Suppress— Search Warrants - Overbroad Portion of Warrant Can Be Excised
On reconsideration, the court held that only evidence seized pursuant to an overbroad portion of a search warrant need be suppressed.
The court earlier reversed defendant's conviction because a warrant that authorized the search of defendant's computers was overbroad. The state petitioned for reconsideration, contending that other evidence that police found when they searched defendant's residence should not be subject to suppression because the remainder of the search warrant was valid. The court agrees that the overbroad portion of the warrant may be excised from the valid portions of the warrant. The court, however, remands to the trial court to determine whether evidence that was not contemplated by the warrant was properly seized under the plain view exception.
State v. Burnham, 289 Or App 783 (2018) (Garrett, J.)
Criminal Procedure--Right to Self-Representation
The trial court erred in denying defendant the right to self-representation because it determined that defendant had insufficient reasons for wanting to represent himself. The trial court did not engage in a colloquy to determine whether defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel, and the record was insufficient for review.
State v. Muhammad, 289 Or App 816 (2018) (per curiam)
The court holds that the trial court erred by imposing attorney fees without first determining defendant's ability to pay.
State v. Davis, 289 Or App 819 (2018) (per curiam)