State v. Monger, 472 P.3d 270

Troy Monger was arrested after showing a police officer incriminating Facebook messages; he consented and provided passwords for his desktop and phone.
Officer Michaud obtained a warrant on Aug 22 authorizing search, seizure, analysis, photography, and digital duplication of Monger’s electronic devices; the warrant required return within a statutory timeframe.
On Aug 23 Michaud sent the warrant to Detective Hubbard (forensic evidence officer) and filed it in police records; Hubbard did not create forensic images until Sept 24.
Monger moved to suppress evidence, arguing ORS 133.565(3)’s five‑day/ten‑day execution requirement was not satisfied because the forensic imaging occurred after that period.
The trial court denied suppression, relying on State v. Callaghan to treat “executed” as synonymous with “served” (i.e., execution began when the warrant was delivered to the person who would perform the search).
The jury returned a nonunanimous (11–1) verdict on one count; the State conceded that under Ramos this was plain error. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded that conviction, affirmed the suppression ruling, and otherwise affirmed remaining convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Monger)	Held
Whether the search warrant was “executed” within ORS 133.565(3)’s time limits (5/10 days) so evidence is admissible	Warrant was executed on Aug 23 when Michaud sent it to Hubbard to perform the forensic search; execution need not be a completed analysis	A warrant is not “executed” until the authorized acts are completed (here, forensic imaging/analysis on Sept 24), so the warrant expired and evidence must be suppressed	Execution does not require completion of every authorized act; sending the warrant to the forensic examiner to begin the process satisfied the statute, so suppression denial affirmed
Whether acceptance of a nonunanimous jury verdict requires reversal	N/A (State conceded error)	Nonunanimous (11–1) verdict violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments under Ramos	State conceded; court exercised discretion to correct plain error — conviction reversed and remanded

State v. Callaghan, 33 Or App 49, 576 P.2d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 1978) ("execute" in ORS timing provision treated as synonymous with "serve"; execution does not require fully completed search)
State v. Daw, 94 Or App 370, 765 P.2d 241 (Or. Ct. App. 1988) (warrant executed beyond statutory time is treated as warrantless search requiring suppression absent exception)
State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185, 421 P.3d 323 (Or. 2018) (distinguishes electronic devices from analog items; retained privacy interests in seized computers/phones)
State v. Munro, 339 Or 545, 124 P.3d 1221 (Or. 2005) (pre‑Mansor case treating seized videotape differently from computers; once seized, contents could be examined)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones implicate greater privacy concerns than a home search)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020) (nonunanimous jury verdicts violate Sixth Amendment as incorporated against the states)
State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500, 464 P.3d 1123 (Or. 2020) (Oregon Supreme Court exercised discretion to correct plain error where nonunanimous verdict was accepted)