Oregon Appellate Court - October 2, 2013
by: Cmaloney, Alarson and Abassos • October 2, 2013 • no comments
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | * | + | *Concealing a White Envelope is Not PC |
| − | *A Drug | + | *A Drug Dog’s Alert Must be Reliable To Provide PC |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | '''Plain View Doctrine – White Envelope Does Not Establish Probable Cause for PCS''' | + | '''Plain View Doctrine – A White Envelope Does Not Establish Probable Cause for PCS''' |
| − | An officer may seize an item if the officer is in a position where he is entitled to be and the incriminating nature of the item to be seized is immediately apparent. Here, the defendant threw a white envelope into her car as she was being arrested. Proceeding only under the plain view doctrine, the court | + | An officer may seize an item if the officer is in a position where he is entitled to be and the incriminating nature of the item to be seized is immediately apparent. Here, the defendant threw a white envelope into her car as she was being arrested. Proceeding only under the plain view doctrine, the court finds that a white envelope is not the type of container that announces its incriminating contents. Furthermore, the defendant’s movements to conceal the envelope only suggested that she did not want the officer to see its contents, not that the envelope contained incriminating evidence. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A148700.pdf ''State v. Currin''], ___ Or App ___ (Oct. 2, 2013). |
'''A Drug Detection Dog’s Alert Must be Reliable To Provide Probable Cause''' | '''A Drug Detection Dog’s Alert Must be Reliable To Provide Probable Cause''' | ||
| − | 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 ___ ( | + | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A146950.pdf ''State v. Farmer''], ___ Or App ___ (Oct. 2, 2013) |
{{wl-publish: 2013-10-02 18:06:59 -0700 | cmaloney }} | {{wl-publish: 2013-10-02 18:06:59 -0700 | cmaloney }} | ||
| − | {{wl-publish: 2013-10-02 18:06:59 -0700 | | + | {{wl-publish: 2013-10-02 18:06:59 -0700 | alarson }} |
{{wl-publish: 2013-10-02 18:06:59 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | {{wl-publish: 2013-10-02 18:06:59 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:05, October 8, 2013
Plain View Doctrine – A White Envelope Does Not Establish Probable Cause for PCS
An officer may seize an item if the officer is in a position where he is entitled to be and the incriminating nature of the item to be seized is immediately apparent. Here, the defendant threw a white envelope into her car as she was being arrested. Proceeding only under the plain view doctrine, the court finds that a white envelope is not the type of container that announces its incriminating contents. Furthermore, the defendant’s movements to conceal the envelope only suggested that she did not want the officer to see its contents, not that the envelope contained incriminating evidence. State v. Currin, ___ Or App ___ (Oct. 2, 2013).
A Drug Detection Dog’s Alert Must be Reliable To Provide Probable Cause
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: State v. Foster and State v. Helzer. State v. Farmer, ___ Or App ___ (Oct. 2, 2013)
