TOOKEY, P. J.
In a petition for reconsideration, the state requests clarification of our opinion in State v. Serrano (A173250), 324 Or App 453, ___ P3d ___ (2023), as to whether the opinion disposes of defendants second assignment of error, which challenged the trial courts denial of defendants motion in limine to exclude nonresponsive material discovered on defendants cell phone. We allow reconsideration to clarify that our discussion of the first and second assignments of error, see id. at 457-58, although explained in terms of the motion to suppress, also relates to the trial courts ruling on the motion in limine, and that the trial court erred in denying defendants motion in limine.
We also clarify that our decision relating to the trial courts rulings is limited by defendants motion in limine and motion to suppress, which sought to exclude evidence discovered during the two warranted searches of defendants cell phone. If, and to the extent defendant seeks suppression of additional evidence based on the principles articulated in the opinion, that would require a new motion to suppress.
Finally, we amend the opinion to clarify that our conclusion that the error in denying the motion to suppress was not harmless is not based on charges having been brought. Thus, see id. at 467, we delete “the charges in this case stem from the investigation triggered by discovery of the nonresponsive material on defendants cell phone, and” from the final sentence of the paragraph. As modified, the sentence now reads:
“The denial of the motion to suppress therefore was not harmless, because highly probative evidence used to prove the states case came from the nonresponsive material discovered on defendants cell phone.”
Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified; adhered to as modified.
TOOKEY, P. J.