State v. Smith
Oregon Supreme Court
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
- United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Segura v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1988
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. UngerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
- Fitzgerald v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
- State v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. MansorOregon Supreme Court · 2018
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.