OR: PC for one computer isn’t PC for another

The computer search here wasn’t authorized by the probable cause showing, and it wasn’t harmless error. Probable cause for one device doesn’t permit search of all. State v. Schult, 343 Or. App. 376 (Sep. 10, 2025).

“Here, Boudreau’s Franks argument fails because even if Detective Wafstet knew and failed to disclose that Boudreau used only his cellphone to communicate with ‘Mia,’ this omission was immaterial. As we have explained, there was probable cause to believe that Boudreau possessed child pornography. If Detective Wafstet lied or omitted material facts regarding Boudreau’s method of communication with ‘Mia,’ it would have had no effect on the fair probability that Boudreau possessed child pornography.” United States v. Boudreau, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23880 (9th Cir. Sep. 16, 2025).*

Defendant had no connection to the house that was searched, and he even lived in another state. Therefore, he has no standing. Ayala v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 387 (Sep. 16, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.