STATE OF OREGON v. STEVEN MICHAEL KLAUS (2026)

The state seeks reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Klaus, 351 Or App 738, ___ P3d ___ (2026). The state requests, among other things, that we add in language to make it more clear that defendant lacked a privacy interest in any of the contents of the laptop. See id. at 748 (“[D]efendant had no ‘right to privacy’ in files that were located on the laptop, because defendant no longer owned the laptop. Because defendant did not have a ‘right to privacy’ in those files, no search of those files under Article I, section 9, occurred.”). In order to make that clarification, we modify the opinion by adding in the following emphasized language to footnote 5:

“We emphasize that, unlike the defendant in De Witt Simons, who retained a privacy right in his internet usage stored by third parties (and, presumably, in all the content remaining on his laptop), defendant here retained no privacy right in communications stored on the laptop itself, whether or not a given piece of evidence recovered from the laptop may have also been stored by a third party, because defendant no longer owned the laptop following the divorce.”

We otherwise adhere to the opinion as written.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

KAMINS, J.