Oregon Appellate Court - October 2, 2013

A police officer may only rely on a drug detection dog for determining probable cause of a crime when the dog’s alert is reliable. Here, the dog-handler team had been trained and certified. However, at a suppression hearing there was no testimony that the training and certification were done in a manner to ensure reliability. Thus, the state did not establish probable cause. The court does an excellent review and analysis of the 2011 Oregon Supreme Court cases on dog sniffs: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9067572705967075612&q=state+v+helzer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&scilh=0 State v. Foster] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=state+v+helzer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&case=4296114326968621521&scilh=0 State v. Helzer].

A police officer may only rely on a drug detection dog for determining probable cause of a crime when the dog’s alert is reliable. Here, the dog-handler team had been trained and certified. However, at a suppression hearing there was no testimony that the training and certification were done in a manner to ensure reliability. Thus, the state did not establish probable cause. The court does an excellent review and analysis of the 2011 Oregon Supreme Court cases on dog sniffs: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9067572705967075612&q=state+v+helzer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&scilh=0 State v. Foster] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=state+v+helzer&hl=en&as_sdt=4,38&case=4296114326968621521&scilh=0 State v. Helzer].

[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A146950.pdf State v. Farmer], ___ Or App ___ (10/2/2013)

[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A146950.pdf State v. Farmer], ___ Or App ___ (10/2/2013)