Oregon Supreme Court 04-07-11
by: Abassos • April 6, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Probable Cause - Dog Sniffs
- Notice of Appeal - Supplemental Judgment
Two criminal rulings from the Oregon Supreme Court today, one of them substantive and one of them procedural:
Probable Cause - Dog Sniff
An alert by a properly trained drug detection dog can provide probable cause to search. But the state is required to demonstrate the particular dog's reliability. In two companion cases today, the issue was whether the state had sufficiently established probable cause for a valid automobile exception to the warrant requirement. In both cases, the drug dog was brought in to sniff the outside of the car, gave the barking indication of a hit, and drugs were found. In State v. Foster, the state was able to establish the reliability of the drug detection dog with detailed evidence regarding the dog's training, certification and recertification under a specified regimen and controlled conditions. Affirmed. In State v Helzer, the state did not sufficiently demonstrate reliability as the testifying officer did not do the initial training and thus was unable to describe either the methods or standards for such training. Testimony regarding the officer's personal training with the dog combined with the field records of the dog's performance were insufficient. Reversed. State v. Helzer
Notice of Appeal - Supplemental Judgment
A notice of appeal must specify the judgment from which the appeal is taken. Where a notice of appeal specifies a judgment of conviction, the notice does not implicitly include supplemental judgments. Here, a notice was filed within 30 days but it did not specify the supplemental judgment regarding restitution for the cost of transporting a witness. Thus, there was no valid notice of appeal regarding the supplemental judgment and the appellate court had no jurisdiction to AWOP (or rule on the case in any other way). State v. Fowler
