Opinion ID: 2611058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Excessive scope of authorization of items to be searched for and seized.

Text: ORS 133.535 authorizes searches and seizures in very broad terms, granting authority to search for and seize [c]ontraband, fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed. In the instant case, the police were investigating a burglary and a murder in which defendant had been identified as the perpetrator. Although they knew that the murderer shot and killed the victim with a semi-automatic weapon during the burglary, they did not know what physical evidence in defendant's apartment or his girlfriend's car would tie him to the crimes. The warrants specifically listed in detail a number of items that the police reasonably believed would be found on defendant's person, in his apartment, and in his girlfriend's car. They did not know with any greater detail everything that might be found during the search. This court has upheld similarly phrased search warrants in the context of different crimes. In State v. Forseth, 302 Or. 233, 729 P.2d 545 (1986), this court upheld the seizure of vials containing white powder under a search warrant authorizing search for the controlled substance marijuana and evidence of its use and possession. There was no violation of state statute or constitution. Forseth was based on an interpretation of ORS 133.585, which provides: The scope of search shall be only such as is authorized by the warrant and is reasonably necessary to discover the persons or things specified therein. Upon discovery of the persons or things so specified, the officer shall take possession or custody of them and search no further under authority of the warrant. If in the course of the search the officer discovers things, not specified in the warrant, which the officer has probable cause to believe to be subject to seizure under ORS 133.535 which the officer did not have probable cause to expect to find, the officer shall also take possession of the things discovered. Contrary to defendant's claims, the search warrants did not grant the police a carte blanche to search for any evidence and to seize anything they encountered. They were restricted to items relating to the murder of Muriel Bentson, a very specific crime. The limitation in the search warrant relating to a specific murder rendered it sufficient.