OR: For particularity in electronic devices, specify what will be found

In Oregon, “For searches of electronic devices, a warrant is specific enough to satisfy the particularity requirement if it ‘describe[s], with as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances, what investigating officers believe will be found’ on the device, including, ‘if available and relevant, the time period during which the information was created, accessed, or otherwise used.’ …. ‘[T]he essential “thing” about which a warrant must be particular is the probative information, not types of files or their location within the computer’s file-management system[.]’ …. In other words, the ‘“hat” is a description of the information related to the alleged criminal conduct which there is probable cause to believe will be found’ on the electronic device. ….” This warrant wasn’t particular enough. State v. Vesa, 324 Or. App. 674, 2023 Ore. App. LEXIS 212 (Mar. 22, 2023).

Defendants were the target of search warrants and their cell phones were seized from their persons. They filed motions for return of the phones, and the government obtained search warrants for the phones. The motion for return is denied without prejudice. United States v. Handler, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47976 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Particularity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.