State v. Friddle
281 Or. App. 130
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- December 2012: after an altercation at defendant’s home, victim W told trooper McClendon she believed the home security system may have recorded the assault; defendant admitted hitting W and played an audio recording of the incident from a cell phone for McClendon.
- March 2013: McClendon applied for a warrant to seize and forensically examine electronic devices at defendant’s residence ("any" cell phones, computers, security system, recorders, tablets) for evidence of Assault II.
- Warrant issued; officers executed it, seizing multiple cell phones, two security cameras, a computer/hard drive, and later opened a gun safe in the garage where they found 93 grams of marijuana.
- Defendant moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing the warrant was overbroad because the affidavit established probable cause only for one cell phone (identified by number) and the security system, not all electronic devices in the home.
- Trial court denied suppression; defendant pleaded guilty conditionally and appealed solely on the overbreadth issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant was overbroad in authorizing seizure and forensic exam of all electronic devices in the home | Affidavit showed defendant could remotely access security footage from a smartphone, so seizing all devices was justified to obtain the recording and prevent deletion | Affidavit only established probable cause for one identified cell phone and the home security system, not for all devices; warrant authorized a wholesale, unsupported search | Warrant was overbroad and invalid; suppression warranted (search of gun safe unlawful) |
| Whether the affidavit’s training-and-experience statements supplied probable cause to search all devices | Such general experience-based statements support inference that related evidence may exist on other devices | Such generic assertions are insufficient absent specific facts connecting other devices to the crime | Generic training-and-experience statements did not establish probability that other devices contained evidence; insufficient probable cause |
| Whether the state may rely on a newly-asserted theory (seizure necessary to prevent remote deletion) on appeal | Seizure of all devices could be justified to forestall remote deletion of recordings | Argument was not raised below; affidavit did not supply facts supporting remote-deletion rationale | Court declined to consider this belated alternative; not considered on appeal |
| Scope-of-search question: did officers exceed the warrant by opening the safe after seizing other devices | State contended seizure/exam of all devices was authorized by warrant | Defendant argued opening safe exceeded scope because no probable cause items remained to be found there | Because warrant was invalid as overbroad, search of safe was unlawful (court did not reach ancillary scope arguments) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mansor, 279 Or. App. 778 (warrant particularity and digital-device-as-place analysis)
- State v. Reid, 319 Or. 65 (warrant may not authorize search broader than affidavit supplies probable cause to justify)
- State v. Williams, 270 Or. App. 721 (standard for probable cause in warrant affidavit)
- State v. Huff, 253 Or. App. 480 (rejecting speculative "stacking of inferences" to show probable cause)
- State v. Ingram, 313 Or. 139 (warrant invalid as overbroad when it allowed invasion of privacy interests not supported by probable cause)
- State v. Verdine, 290 Or. 553 (probable cause requires more than well-founded suspicion)
- State v. Daniels, 234 Or. App. 533 (limits on invoking training-and-experience without factual connection)
- State v. Kolb, 251 Or. App. 303 (appellate discretion not to address belated, undeveloped alternative bases for affirmance)