State v. J. C. L., 325 P.3d 740

Youth, 16, accused in a juvenile delinquency case of first-degree and second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse (Counts 1-4).
Evidence linked to Conahan’s possession of child pornography; Conahan’s statements led police to youth.
Youth’s computer was seized without a warrant from Dutton’s home; later eight-day gap before a search warrant issued.
Limewire installed on youth’s computer; images identical to Conahan’s were found in a hidden shared folder.
Juvenile court denied suppression and later denied motions for acquittal; proceedings involve challenges to evidentiary suppression and sufficiency of intent/possession.
Statutory framework: ORS 163.684(l)(a)(A) and ORS 163.686 (2007); issues involve whether the seizure was justified and whether evidence supports intent to duplicate/display or possession.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the seizure was valid under exigent circumstances	State contends exigency justified warrantless seizure	Youth argues no exigency; Dutton could be trusted not to destroy evidence	Exigent circumstances supported warrantless seizure; no error
Whether delay between seizure and warrant was plain error	N/A	Delay potentially unjustified; argues review should occur	Plain error review declined; no adequate record for delay reasonings
Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 2 and 4 (knowingly possessed images)	Evidence shows files downloaded to youth’s computer in a known folder	Possession not proven; Conahan could have loaded files	Sufficient evidence that youth knowingly possessed images
Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 1 and 3 (intent to duplicate/display)	Evidence supports intent to share via Limewire; folders marked shared	Possession/viewing alone insufficient to show intent to duplicate/display	Evidence supports intent to share; court approved judgment of acquittal denial

State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 (2010) (exigent circumstances permit warrantless seizure with probable cause and exigency)
State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173 (2006) (exigent circumstances require imminent destruction risk to justify warrantless seizure)
State v. Snow, 337 Or 219 (2004) (exigency defined as preventing destruction of evidence)
State v. Miller, 300 Or 203 (1985) (exigency and imminent destruction factors)
State v. Parras, 110 Or App 200 (1991) (exigency principles applied to timely seizure)
United States v. Alaimalo, 313 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir 2002) (exigency and destruction of evidence considerations)
United States v. Mayomi, 873 F.2d 1049 (7th Cir 1989) (delay between seizure and search—fact-specific evaluation)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (1991) (review standards for plain error and preserved arguments)
State v. Bray, 342 Or 711 (2007) (definition of display under ORS 163.684)