Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2022–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Turaygreen2 sentences2024See Turay, 371 Or at 145-46 (rejecting the state’s argument that search categories are sufficiently specific “as long as its description permits law enforcement to identify with a rea- sonable degree of certainty whether a given piece of data falls within the search category, no matter how broad the scope of the description,” as inconsistent with Mansor (emphases in original)). 2024See Turay, 371 Or at 145-46 (rejecting the state’s argument that search categories are sufficiently specific “as long as its description permits law enforcement to identify with a rea- sonable degree of certainty whether a given piece of data falls within the search category, no matter how broad the scope of the description,” as inconsistent with Mansor (emphases in original)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. DiMolfettogreen1 sentence2025See State v. Paye, 310 Or App 408, 415-17 , 486 P3d 808 (2021) (command to search the defendant’s computer for “[a]ny and all evidence Cite as 342 Or App 456 (2025) 487 documenting the [crimes of promoting prostitution and com- pelling prostitution],” to include a broad array of informa- tion such as photographs and videos of the named victim and “as-of-yet unidentified females,” satisfied the particu- larity requirement notwithstanding the lack of a temporal limitation; there was probable cause that the defendant was engaged in an ongoing enterprise, that evidence of that enterprise would be | 1 | 1 |
State v. Payegreen2 sentences2025See State v. Paye, 310 Or App 408, 415-17 , 486 P3d 808 (2021) (command to search the defendant’s computer for “[a]ny and all evidence Cite as 342 Or App 456 (2025) 487 documenting the [crimes of promoting prostitution and com- pelling prostitution],” to include a broad array of informa- tion such as photographs and videos of the named victim and “as-of-yet unidentified females,” satisfied the particu- larity requirement notwithstanding the lack of a temporal limitation; there was probable cause that the defendant was engaged in an ongoing enterprise, that evidence of that enterprise would be 2025See State v. Paye, 310 Or App 408, 415-17 , 486 P3d 808 (2021) (command to search the defendant’s computer for “[a]ny and all evidence Cite as 342 Or App 456 (2025) 487 documenting the [crimes of promoting prostitution and com- pelling prostitution],” to include a broad array of informa- tion such as photographs and videos of the named victim and “as-of-yet unidentified females,” satisfied the particu- larity requirement notwithstanding the lack of a temporal limitation; there was probable cause that the defendant was engaged in an ongoing enterprise, that evidence of that enterprise would be | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mansor
green
2 sentences2025To meet the particu- larity requirement of Article I, section 9, a warrant authoriz- ing the search of digital devices “must identify, as specifically as reasonably possible in the circumstances, the informa- tion to be searched for, including, if relevant and available, the time period during which that information was created, accessed, or otherwise used.” Mansor II, 363 Or at 218 . 2025To meet the particu- larity requirement of Article I, section 9, a warrant authoriz- ing the search of digital devices “must identify, as specifically as reasonably possible in the circumstances, the informa- tion to be searched for, including, if relevant and available, the time period during which that information was created, accessed, or otherwise used.” Mansor II, 363 Or at 218 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Trax
green
2 sentences2022In response, the state contends that the warrant was sufficiently particular under Article I, section 9, because with “reasonable effort, any police officer executing the search warrant could have located defendant’s apartment.” See State v. Trax, 335 Or 597, 603 , 75 P3d 440 (2003) (“A description in a warrant of the place to be searched satisfies the particu- larity requirement if it permits the executing officer to locate with reasonable effort the premises to be searched.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). 2022In response, the state contends that the warrant was sufficiently particular under Article I, section 9, because with “reasonable effort, any police officer executing the search warrant could have located defendant’s apartment.” See State v. Trax, 335 Or 597, 603 , 75 P3d 440 (2003) (“A description in a warrant of the place to be searched satisfies the particu- larity requirement if it permits the executing officer to locate with reasonable effort the premises to be searched.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.