There was an alleged domestic assault at defendant’s home. There was reason to believe the home security system and his cell phone would have evidence of it in an audio recording. He could also access the security system with his smartphone. “The warrant application sought authorization to seize and examine, as evidence of crimes ‘including but not limited to Assault,’ ][a]ll cell phones, computers, recorders and security systems owned or operated by [defendant].’ The application further sought authorization to examine such items for digital evidence, including ‘[g]raphic and movie files ***, which may be, or are, used to visually depict an assault taking place,’ as well as text files and ‘[c]orrespondence’ ‘pertaining to the crime of assault.’” In executing the search warrant, officers went into defendant’s gun safe because it was possible there were other cell phones, cameras, or computers in there. In there, marijuana was found, and defendant moved to suppress. The court found that there was no probable cause shown as to all the possible recording devices that defendant could have to justify their seizure and forensic analysis. State v. Friddle, 281 Ore. App. 130, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1085 (Sept. 14, 2016).
Note: This case, albeit decided under the state constitution, will be valuable elsewhere. I regularly see affidavits for search warrants seeking wholesale seizure of home computers, cell phones, and security system DVRs without regard to there being any realistic possibility there is anything of evidentiary value on them. Yet, many police officers seek wholesale seizure of electronics just because they think they can.