WARRANTS NOT NEEDED FOR DRUG DOG SEARCHES

SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- The Oregon Supreme Court, reversing a lower court, says
a drug dog's sniffing outside a storage unit didn't require a search warrant.

Friday's ruling overturned a 1997 decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals
that had cast doubt on use of dogs to gain evidence in drug cases.

The appeals court had held 6-4 that police needed warrants in many cases to
use the dogs.

The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the appeal court, saying dog
sniffing for drugs generally doesn't infringe on privacy rights.

"The use of a dog to sniff property in this manner is not a search for
constitutional purposes," the Supreme Court said.

Police use of drug-sniffing dogs is in some legal doubt because of an Oregon
Court of Appeals decision that police need to get search warrants to employ
the canines in most cases.

The case involves marijuana found in a storage locker in Brookings rented by
Desmond Smith.

An informant told Brookings police that Smith stored harvested marijuana in
the rented locker. A police narcotics detection dog in 1993 indicated by
sniffing that drugs were kept in Smith's locker.

Police then obtained a search warrant and found marijuana in the locker. But
the appeals court said because the warrant was not obtained before the
dog-sniffing operation took place, the operation violated the Oregon
Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Supreme Court said a search "commonly involves some form of invasion
into private space."

The case involved using a dog to "detect the presence of a particular odor
caused by the presence of odor molecules in the air outside a clearly
defined, private space," the court said in an opinion by Justice Michael
Gillette.

"At least when they are conducted in a public place, dog sniffs are not
searches" and thus don't require warrants, Gillette said.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett