State v. Slowikowski
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Texas v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Volb v. G.E. Capital Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
- State v. SlowikowskiOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- Quigley v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1992
- People v. GuentherAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
- State v. GilCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.