State v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentDeits, J.
The majority concludes that, because a dog sniff is a search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, we have no choice but to require probable cause and exigent circumstances before a dog sniff may be conducted without a warrant. I disagree; first, because we have previously decided this question contrarily and, second, because the majority’s understanding of our assessment of the reasonableness of a dog-sniff search under Article I, section 9, is unnecessarily restrictive.
As the majority correctly explains, we have held that use of a trained narcotics detection dog’s sense of…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1988
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.