State v. Rose, 264 Or. App. 95

Victim (16) sent two photographs of her bare breasts to defendant via Yahoo! e-mail in June 2010; defendant was later charged under ORS 163.670 for using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.
Detective Pitt obtained an Oregon circuit court search warrant directing Yahoo! (a California company) to produce defendant’s account records and all electronic contents; warrant was faxed to Yahoo’s California legal compliance team and Yahoo produced the records.
Pitt located the two photographs in the produced e-mails; defendant moved to suppress on statutory and particularity grounds; trial court denied suppression and defendant was convicted based on the first photograph.
Defendant appealed, arguing (1) ORS 136.583 did not authorize an Oregon court to issue a warrant to be executed out-of-state, and (2) the warrant was insufficiently particular because it authorized seizure of all e-mails without temporal or subject limits.
The court considered the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703) background and construed ORS 136.583 (enacted 2009) as allowing Oregon courts to issue criminal process to out-of-state recipients so long as the court has personal jurisdiction over the recipient and the exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional.
The court affirmed: ORS 136.583 authorized the out-of-state warrant (personal-jurisdiction reading), and the warrant was sufficiently particular because it identified the account and sought evidence of specified crimes rather than ideas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 136.583 authorized an Oregon court to issue a warrant to be executed on an out-of-state business (Yahoo)	State: statute by its plain terms authorizes criminal process to recipients outside Oregon when recipient has sufficient contacts and the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is constitutional	Defendant: subsection (1)(b) imposes a territorial constitutional limit and therefore precludes issuance of warrants to be executed outside Oregon	Court: ORS 136.583 permits out-of-state execution so long as the issuing court has personal jurisdiction over the recipient; defendant did not dispute personal jurisdiction, so warrant authorized
Whether the warrant satisfied constitutional particularity (Art I §9 and Fourth Amendment)	State: warrant identified specific Yahoo account and sought evidence of specified crimes (using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct; encouraging child sexual abuse), so it was sufficiently particular	Defendant: warrant was overbroad because it authorized seizure of "any and all contents" of the account without time or subject limits despite knowledge that relevant photos were from June–July 2010; First Amendment scrutiny requires scrupulous exactitude	Court: heightened First Amendment particularity not triggered where materials are sought as evidence of a crime; warrant was particular enough — it specified the account and the criminal evidence sought, limiting officers’ discretion

State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (trial-court fact findings binding on appeal)
Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209 (preservation rule purpose and practical application)
State v. Walker, 350 Or 540 (preservation rule; fairness to opposing parties)
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (First Amendment materials require heightened particularity)
State v. Tidyman, 30 Or App 537 (particularity requirement purpose)
State v. Massey, 40 Or App 211 (avoidance of undue rummaging; specificity depends on circumstances)
United States v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127 (First Amendment scrupulous-exactitude not implicated when material seized as evidence of crime)