Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

283 Or. App. 422

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 11, 2017

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2017-01-11

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2019

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that, for the purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, law enforcement illegally seized [the] package by removing it from the stream of mail and submitting it to a dog sniff.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Sholedice

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-01-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM

¶1The state filed a petition for reconsideration of our prior decision in this case, State v. Smith, 282 Or App 208, 384 P3d 175 (2016), seeking to file supplemental briefing that it filed in a related case, State v. Sholedice, 283 Or App 346, 386 P3d 701 (2017). After the state filed its petition, we issued our decision in Sholedice. In light of that decision, we allow reconsideration, deny the request for supplemental briefing, withdraw our prior decision, and reverse and remand pursuant to State v. Barnthouse, 271 Or App 312, 350 P3d 536 (2015), aff'd on other grounds, 360 Or 403, 380 P3d 952 (2016) (holding that, for purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, law enforcement illegally seized a package by removing it from the stream of mail and submitting it to a dog sniff).

¶2Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; reversed and remanded.

/283/orapp/422 · .json · Public domain