State v. Mansor
279 Or. App. 778
Washington Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- Defendant called 9-1-1 after his 11‑week‑old son stopped breathing; police suspected abusive head trauma and obtained a search warrant for the home, including two laptops and two desktop towers.
- Affiant Detective Rookhuyzen’s supporting warrant affidavit described defendant’s statements that he had used a computer to research what to do during the 15 minutes before calling 9‑1‑1 and recited the baby’s injuries and a pediatrician’s diagnosis of shaken‑baby syndrome.
- The warrant’s face listed 11 categories of items to seize and stated “See attachment A,” but did not itself describe any forensic search protocol or temporal limits for examining computer contents. Attachment A (listing the items) was appended to the affidavit, not to the warrant itself.
- Officers seized the four computers and a digital forensic examiner conducted an off‑site forensic image and broad examination that encompassed data spanning over 10 years; searches produced June 12 browser queries and older searches (months earlier) that the state later used at trial.
- Defendant moved to suppress the computer evidence on Article I, section 9 (Oregon) and Fourth Amendment grounds, arguing the warrant was non‑specific and overbroad; the trial court denied suppression and the jury convicted.
- On appeal the court addressed (1) whether the affidavit could be considered with the warrant (attachment/incorporation) and (2) whether the warrant—viewed with the affidavit—was sufficiently particular and not overbroad for a forensic search of computers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate’s supporting affidavit can be considered with the warrant | The affidavit accompanied the warrant (Attachment A appended to affidavit) and therefore may be used to interpret and limit the warrant | Warrant facially inadequate; affidavit was not attached/incorporated when executed, so the warrant must be judged on its face | Court concluded the record supported consideration of the affidavit (defendant bore burden to prove it was not attached); review includes the affidavit |
| Whether the warrant was sufficiently particular and not overbroad for a forensic examination of computers | The warrant identified computers and relied on affidavit probable cause; no special temporal protocol required and affidavit supported searching relevant periods | Warrant allowed unlimited, roving forensic search of entire drives (including long‑prior data) and lacked temporal/substantive limits — thus impermissibly overbroad | Court held the warrant (even supplemented by affidavit) was overbroad as to the forensic examination of computer contents and violated Article I, §9; suppression error was not harmless, so conviction reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rose, 264 Or. App. 95 (Or. App.) (upholding a warrant for email account search where account likely contained broader evidentiary content beyond narrowly alleged items)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (electronic devices contain vast private information; warrants and protections differ from searches of physical effects)
- Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (Del. 2016) (warrant authorizing unfettered forensic search of devices and lacking temporal limits was impermissibly general/overbroad)
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) (computer hard drives are akin to residences given quantity/sensitivity of private information; warrants must account for that scope)
- State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2015) (warrant failing to describe or narrow types of files to be searched on a computer violated particularity)
- United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2009) (warrant authorizing seizure and examination of “any and all information” on computers invalid under particularity, though good‑faith exception issues may arise)