Court Opinion

ID: 9577106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:31:45.072828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:59.164667
License: Public Domain

DE MUNIZ, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with Judge Warren that the majority is correct that there is no principled basis to make an exception to the warrant and probable cause requirements for “dog-sniff’ searches. I also agree with him that we were wrong in holding that “dog-sniffs” are searches under Article I, section 9, in State v. Juarez-Godinez, 135 Or App 591, 900 P2d 1044 (1995), affd 326 Or 1 (1997). However, unlike Judge Warren, I do not consider that we are bound by Juarez-Godinez. I would overrule the opinion insofar as it holds that all “dog sniffs” are searches within the meaning of Article I, section 9.
I also joined with the majority in the Juarez-Godinez holding but am now persuaded that Judge Edmonds correctly applied the Supreme Court’s analysis of Article I, section 9, in concluding there that the dog sniff of odors emanating onto the freeway did not involve any intrusion into privacy interests so as to constitute a search. Under that analysis, Judge Edmonds is also correct here that Nitro was in a place where he had a right to be and that the dog sniff *262of odors emanating from unit 125 did not invade any interest protected by Article I, section 9.