Summary
This Oregon Supreme Court opinion addresses a petition for reconsideration regarding the legality of anticipatory search warrants under Oregon law. The court clarifies its prior decision by holding that ORS 133.545(6) requires probable cause that evidence is presently located at the place to be searched, thereby prohibiting anticipatory warrants. Furthermore, the court concludes that ORS 133.673 establishes a statutory mechanism allowing courts to suppress evidence obtained in violation of specific warrant requirements, independent of constitutional exclusionary rules. The opinion reaffirms this holding while declining to address broader constitutional challenges or suppression remedies for other warrant statute violations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether ORS 133.545(6) requires an affidavit supporting a warrant to establish that the evidence is presently in the place or possession to be searched, thereby prohibiting anticipatory warrants.
- Whether ORS 133.673 creates a statutory procedural mechanism permitting suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the warrant statutes in ORS 133.525 to 133.703.
- Whether ORS 136.432 overrides or precludes suppression under ORS 133.673 for a violation of ORS 133.545(6).
- Whether every violation of the warrant statutes within ORS 133.525 to 133.703 requires suppression.
Holdings
- ORS 133.545(6) requires the affidavit supporting a warrant to set forth facts and circumstances showing that the objects of the search are presently in the places or possession to be searched; therefore, the statute prohibits anticipatory warrants.
- ORS 133.673 creates a procedural mechanism for seeking and adjudicating suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the specific statutory range in ORS 133.525 to 133.703.
- ORS 136.432 does not impliedly repeal or override ORS 133.673; suppression may be available when the legislature has provided for it through the interaction of ORS 133.673 and a substantive warrant statute.
- Evidence obtained through an anticipatory warrant that violates ORS 133.545(6) must be suppressed under ORS 133.673.
Key quotations
“The text, context, and legislative history of ORS 133.673 demonstrate that the legislature intended that statute to create a procedural mechanism to suppress evidence obtained in violation of a specific and narrow subset of statutes—ORS 133.525 to 133.703, the warrant statutes.” (559-60)
“Our opinion holds—and we confirm on reconsideration—that ORS 133.545(6) requires that an affidavit in support of a warrant set forth that evidence presently be in the location to be searched, and that suppression is provided by statute because the character of the requirement contained in ORS 133.545(6) is a privacy protection that implies a right not to be prosecuted upon evidence secured via a warrant obtained in violation of that protection.” (560)
“Accordingly, and in keeping with our decisions in Russell, Davis, Ingram, and other cases, the evidence obtained in this case in violation of ORS 135.545(6), required statutory suppression under ORS 133.673.” (573)
Factual background
The case involved an anticipatory search warrant, defined as a warrant based on probable cause that evidence would be located at a specified place at a future time rather than presently. The Supreme Court concluded that ORS 133.545(6) requires the supporting affidavit to establish that the objects of the search are presently in the places or possession identified for search. The court further concluded that the statutory warrant violation implicated privacy protections and required suppression under ORS 133.673.
Procedural history
The case arose from a criminal prosecution in the Oregon circuit court. The Court of Appeals issued a decision at 319 Or. App. 191, 509 P.3d 689 (2022). The Oregon Supreme Court issued its original decision at 371 Or. 200, 532 P.3d 894 (2023), then granted the State's petition for reconsideration and issued this modified opinion.