State v. Lee
A warrant application satisfies the requirement in ORS 133.545(6) when it 鈥減articularly sets forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places . . . to be searched.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Turay
A warrant for digital data meets the particularity requirement in the Oregon Constitution when it 鈥渄escribe[s] the information the state seeks鈥ith as much specificity as reasonably possible under the circumstances鈥 and does 鈥渘ot authorize a search that is broader than the supporting affidavit supplies probable cause to justify.鈥 State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 222, 212, 421 P3d 323 (2018). When a defendant 鈥渆stablish[es] a minimal factual nexus between [a constitutional violation] and the challenged evidence鈥 there is a presumption that the challenged evidence be suppressed, which can be rebutted only by establishing 鈥渢hat the challenged evidence was untainted by鈥 the violation. State v. DeJong, 368 Or 640, 642, 497 P3d 710 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Haley
Under ORS 164.205(1), a 鈥渟eparate unit鈥 is determined by its structure, occupancy, function, layout, and appearance within a building.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law