Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 28, 1997No. 93CR815; CA A86622PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*237LANDAU, J.

In State v. Juarez-Godinez, 135 Or App 591, 604-05, 900 P2d 1044 (1995), affd 326 Or 1 (1997), we held that the use of a trained narcotics detection dog is a search within the meaning of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Left open in that decision was the question whether such “dog-sniff’ searches are subject to the warrant and probable cause requirements of Article I, section 9, or are subject to some lesser standard based on the minimal nature of the intrusion involved in such searches. That question is before us in this case.

Defendant argues that the trial court…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Arizona v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State v. BatesOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  5. State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1988

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State v. Juarez-GodinezOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. Juarez-GodinezOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API