Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 28, 1997No. 93CR815; CA A86622Published

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

  1. United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  3. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1988

27 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