Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1998No. CC 93CR815; CA A86622; SC S44403PublishedCited by 78 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

This criminal case presents an interesting (and recurring) question: Does Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 require police officers to obtain a warrant before using a trained drug-detecting dog to sniff the exterior of a locked storage unit for odors that are imperceptible to the human nose? A majority of the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, answered that question in the affirmative, holding that any evidence obtained as a consequence of a warrantless dog sniff must be suppressed. State v. Smith, 148 Or App 235, 246, 939 P2d 157 (1997). The state petitioned for review,…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Segura v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  4. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by78 opinions

  1. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. UngerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Fitzgerald v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
  4. State v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  5. State v. MansorOregon Supreme Court · 2018

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

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

Powered by the Exa API