87 Or. App. 677 - State v. Slowikowski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this case, the officers were not out on a fishing expedition to seek out marijuana; the trial court found that they were engaged in a training exercise with `Breaker' at the mini-storage facility where they had the owner's permission. While engaged in the training exercise, `Breaker' unexpectedly alerted to defendant's storage unit, thereby indicating that it contained contraband. Under those limited and unusual circumstances, I would accept the `plain smell' doctrine, because: (1) the officers were where they had a right to be and were not engaged in a general search or fishing expedition, and the discovery of the scent was inadvertent; and (2) it was accomplished without the use of any technological enhancement. Because dogs with more sensitive olfactory nerves have been used in police work for centuries, I do not consider their use in this instance as a technological enhancement."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Slowikowski

2. “"On these specific facts, we hold that, because defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the odor of marijuana escaping from his unit, the dog sniff here was not a search." (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Slowikowski

3. “"The dispositive issue is whether a dog-sniff is a search. On these specific facts, we conclude that a dog-sniff is not a search. Therefore, we affirm."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Slowikowski