State v. Juarez-Godinez
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentVan Hoomissen, J.
I respectfully dissent.
I would hold that (1) Trooper Burdick did not seize the car before the dog-sniff; (2) even if Burdick seized the car before the dog-sniff, the seizure was justified by his reasonable and articulable suspicion that the car was being used to transport contraband; (3) a dog-sniff is not a search for state constitutional purposes; (4) Burdick’s affidavit established probable cause to search; and (5) even if Burdick violated Article I, section 9, after the enactment of Measure 40, Article I, section 9, may not be construed more broadly than the Fourth Amendment and that…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.