State v. Burnham, 403 P.3d 466

In 2012 police investigated defendant for allegedly hunting and killing an elk on Plum Creek property without permission; a witness (Martin) identified locations and took photos of defendant with the elk using defendant’s cellphone and said the photos were posted to Facebook.
Officers visited the property with Martin, recorded GPS coordinates that suggested the shooting occurred on Plum Creek land and the elk died on another landowner’s property.
A fish and wildlife officer (Kehr) obtained a search warrant for defendant’s residence authorizing seizure and forensic examination of “any and all” computer equipment and electronic data devices (cell phones, laptops, storage media) that might contain information about illegally obtained wildlife.
Kehr’s affidavit relied on his “training and experience” to assert it was customary for hunters to retain photos of harvested wildlife and that cellphones often store date/time/geolocation metadata.
Officers executed the warrant, seized a laptop and other items, performed forensic analysis, and obtained incriminating GPS data from photos on the laptop.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized under the warrant as overbroad; the trial court denied the motion. On appeal the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding the warrant was impermissibly overbroad under Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrant was overbroad under Article I, § 9	Warrant authorized seizure of devices likely to contain incriminating photos and metadata; training/experience supports forensic search of multiple devices	Only one device (a single cellphone) was tied to incriminating photos; affidavit lacked facts or specialized training to show data would be on all devices	Warrant was facially overbroad; affidavit did not establish probable cause to forensically examine all listed devices
Whether affidavit established probable cause for forensic examination of each electronic device	Affiant’s training/experience and fact that photos were posted justified forensic searches of multiple devices	Affidavit’s training/experience statement was generic and lacked device-transmission expertise; did not show it was more likely than not that incriminating data existed on every device	Affiant’s generalized training/experience insufficient; magistrate could not infer probable cause for all devices
Whether error was harmless	State did not argue harmlessness	Defendant argued suppression would eliminate central evidence	Error was not harmless given centrality of seized evidence; reversal required
Whether court needed to address Fourth Amendment claim	State urged alternative federal claim	Defendant raised other Fourth Amendment arguments	Court declined to reach Fourth Amendment because state constitutional violation was established

State v. Friddle, 281 Or. App. 130 (2016) (affidavit insufficient where generic training/experience did not show probable cause to forensically search multiple devices)
State v. Mansor, 279 Or. App. 778 (2016) (electronic devices treated like places to be searched; affidavit must show probable cause for forensic examination of each device)
State v. Williams, 270 Or. App. 721 (2015) (probability standard requires it be more likely than not that evidence will be found at the specified location)