OR: SW omitted apt. no. but affidavit had it; they both were present at the search and that was sufficient

The affidavit for this warrant mentioned only defendant’s apartment building. The affidavit mentioned the apartment number. “The warrant did not incorporate or otherwise reference the affidavit and did not identify defendant by name. Green testified that the omission was an ‘oversight,’ rather than a measure to secure authorization to search the entire building, and that he was ‘not experienced in warrant writing.’” The warrant and affidavit, however, went to the scene of the search together in a file folder. The officers intended to search only defendant’s apartment and did. The presence of the affidavit at the scene satisfied the particularity requirement because the officers could determine which apartment to search. Under the state constitution, this was sufficient. Under the Fourth Amendment, the warrant was deficient, but the good faith exception applies. State v. Breedwell, 323 Or. App. 172 (Dec. 14, 2022):

Thus, we are tasked with determining, as a matter of first impression, what evidence a defendant must put forward to prove that an affidavit was not sufficiently connected to the warrant it supports to permit a court to refer to the affidavit in construing the warrant. In so doing, we rely on Mansor II and the body of Oregon law discussing the purposes animating the particularity requirement generally. As we explained earlier, the particularity requirement aims to ensure that executing officers search only those areas for which the issuing magistrate found probable cause to search. See Mansor II, 363 Ore. at 212 (“the particularity requirement exists to narrow the scope of the search to those premises for which a magistrate has found probable cause to authorize the search” (internal quotation marks omitted)). When the face of a warrant fails to be sufficiently particular to provide executing officers with appropriate limitations, it is possible that a supporting affidavit may provide those limitations and cure the defect. But the affidavit must be so connected to the warrant that the two are functionally one document when the warrant is executed to actually provide those limitations. Otherwise, an officer may be left free to use discretion during the search, something which is directly at odds with the limits Article I, section 9, was intended to enforce. See Ingram, 313 Ore. at 145 (insufficiently particular warrants require officers to employ discretion in deciding where to search, creating the risk that the officers “could invade privacy interests not intended by the magistrate to be invaded and could conduct searches not supported by probable cause”).

This entry was posted in Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.