State v. Turay, 493 P.3d 1058

Detective Opitz investigating prostitution/sex‑trafficking found Backpage ads linking J (a 17‑year‑old) and Gregg; Opitz arranged a sting in which defendant drove J to the meeting and was stopped; officers seized defendant’s cell phone.
Opitz submitted a 21‑page affidavit describing his training, J’s statements (she used Pinger, posted ads, lived with defendant and Gregg, and had prostitution dates at an EconoLodge), and prior Backpage postings; affidavit asserted phones are commonly used to run prostitution activity.
The magistrate issued a warrant with nine broad search commands (communications between J/Gregg/defendant; relationship evidence; prostitution‑related communications; photos showing association with prostitution; sexually explicit images; internet site use including Backpage with dates; Uber/ride‑share evidence; geolocation for 06/15/2017–09/06/2017; and a catchall).
Execution of the warrant produced photographs, Backpage screenshots, and text messages that were admitted at trial; defendant was convicted of compelling prostitution.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held (1) the affidavit established probable cause to search the phone, but (2) multiple warrant commands lacked the particularity required by Article I, §9, and (3) because the record did not show whether admitted evidence was found pursuant to the valid commands, the case was vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing tracing how the forensic search was performed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause to search phone	Affidavit plus training/experience and J’s statements gave a nexus that phone likely contained prostitution evidence	Affidavit only established speculative possibility, not nexus to phone	Probable cause exists; affidavit showed a reasonable belief evidence would be on defendant’s phone
Particularity of digital‑search warrant	At least some commands (communications between named parties; photos related to ads; Backpage use for specified dates) are narrowly directed and constitutional; overbroad portions are severable	Warrant was overbroad and nonspecific (no temporal limits, vague phrases) permitting rummaging; violated Article I, §9	Mixed: only commands 3 (prostitution‑related communications), 5 (sexually explicit images related to postings), and 6 (internet site use including Backpage for 06/15/2017–09/06/2017) were sufficiently particular; others were invalid
Remedy / severability when warrant partly invalid	Evidence admitted at trial is the kind that lawful commands would produce; court can infer traceability to valid commands	State must prove evidence was discovered pursuant to valid commands, not by overbroad ones	When warrant contains both valid and invalid digital‑search commands, court must hold a hearing and the state must prove each challenged item was discovered by a search/forensic step responsive only to the valid, particular commands; remand required

State v. Mansor, 363 Or 185 (Or. 2018) (Mansor II) (articulates how particularity applies to electronic searches; the ‘what’ must be described as specifically as reasonably possible and affidavit may limit the warrant)
State v. Mansor, 279 Or App 778 (Or. App. 2016) (Mansor I) (earlier Court of Appeals reasoning on digital‑search particularity)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones contain vast personal data; searches require particular care)
State v. Paye, 310 Or App 408 (Or. App. 2021) (applied Mansor II to uphold a broadly worded communications command where affidavit showed ongoing enterprise and identified the evidence sought)
State v. Frischman, 298 Or App 186 (Or. App. 2019) (remand required where record did not show whether admitted evidence was seized pursuant to valid or invalid warrant portions)
State v. Bock, 310 Or App 329 (Or. App. 2021) (rejected application of plain‑view to electronic searches; evidence outside scope of valid commands must be suppressed)