State v. Thompson, 481 P.3d 921

Victim, his acquaintance B, and defendant met when victim attempted to sell an in-dash DVD player; a robbery/shooting followed and defendant was shot.
Defendant went to a hospital using someone else’s ID; officer Robertson recognized defendant and seized defendant’s cell phone at the hospital, believing it contained evidence and fearing destruction of data.
Police retained the phone for five days while investigating and then obtained a warrant to search it; Robertson later referenced phone call logs during a custodial interview with defendant.
Defendant moved to suppress the phone and derivative evidence (including interview statements); the trial court denied suppression, finding exigent circumstances and probable cause for identity-theft related evidence.
At trial the jury convicted defendant of first-degree robbery (based on use of a dangerous weapon), unlawful use of a weapon, and identity theft; defendant demurred to the robbery count after jeopardy attached because the original indictment used "armed with a deadly weapon."
On appeal the court held any error in admitting interview statements was harmless and that defendant could not challenge the indictment amendment because he had been instrumental in prompting and benefiting from it (invited-error/waiver).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawful seizure/retention of cell phone and admissibility of interview statements	Warrant exception: exigent circumstances + probable cause justified seizure/retention; any admission of interview statements was harmless	Seizure was unreasonable under Article I, §9; five‑day retention without prompt warrant and subsequent use of phone info in interrogation required suppression	Even if suppression denial was error, admission of the interview statements was harmless (defendant failed to show prejudice)
Demurrer: amendment of indictment after jeopardy (grand jury presentment)	Amendment was a form/scrivener correction (to conform to correct grand jury indictment); defendant had agreed to proceed under amended language	Amendment after jeopardy attached changed substance ("armed with" → "used or attempted to use") and violated grand jury presentment rights	Reversal barred because defendant either consented to or was instrumental in the amendment; invited‑error/waiver prevents relief

State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Snow, 337 Or 219 (exigency includes preventing destruction of evidence)
State v. Parras, 110 Or App 200 (state bears burden to show exigent circumstances and probable cause for seized item)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (harmless‑error standard: little likelihood the error affected the verdict)
State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432 (erroneous admission of duplicative evidence is typically harmless)
State v. Pachmayr, 344 Or 482 (distinguishing amendments of form vs. substance in indictments)
State v. Quinn, 290 Or 383 (warrant must be obtained as promptly as reasonable after seizure)
State v. Mazzola, 356 Or 804 (exigency assessed by reasonableness in time, scope, and intensity)