Legal Opinion

State v. Slowikowski

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 14, 1987No. 85-3779-C-2; CA A39836PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*679VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

Defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4). He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because search and arrest warrants were issued based on a prior unlawful search by police using a trained dog. The dispositive issue is whether a dog-sniff is a search. On these specific facts, we conclude that a dog-sniff is not a search. Therefore, we affirm.

Deputy Fillmore and dog handler Forrester conducted a police training exercise at a mini-storage facility with “Breaker,” a dog…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Texas v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Volb v. G.E. Capital Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  2. State v. SlowikowskiOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Quigley v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1992
  4. People v. GuentherAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  5. State v. GilCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997

7 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