State v. Foster
Decision Date | 07 April 2011 |
Docket Number | (CC CR060302; CA A135857; SC S058240). |
Citation | 350 Or. 161,252 P.3d 292 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review,v.Steven Michael FOSTER, Petitioner on Review. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
(CC CR060302; CA A135857; SC S058240).
Supreme Court of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted May 7, 2010.Decided April 7, 2011.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On review from the Court of Appeals.*Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.Karla Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With her on the briefs were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.Before DE MUNIZ, Chief Justice, and DURHAM, BALMER, KISTLER, WALTERS, and LINDER, Justices.**LINDER, J.
After a lawful stop of defendant's car, police searched the car based on an alert by an officer's drug-detection dog. The search recovered a pipe with drug residue on it, which resulted in defendant's arrest and prosecution for possession of methamphetamine. At trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence of the seized pipe, arguing that the dog alert was insufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to search his car. After a hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion and, following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, renewing his argument that the dog alert was unreliable. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Foster, 233 Or.App. 135, 225 P.3d 830 (2010). We allowed review to consider the issue of whether, and under what circumstances, an alert by a drug-detection dog provides probable cause to search.
As we will explain, we hold that an alert by a properly trained and reliable drug-detection dog can be a basis for probable cause to search. Whether a particular alert by a particular dog provides probable cause is an issue that requires an individualized inquiry, based on the totality of the circumstances known to police, which typically will include such considerations as the dog's and its handler's training, certification, and performance. In this case, we conclude that the drug-detection dog's alert to defendant's car provided officers with probable cause to search, and we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court.
Because neither party questions the accuracy of the facts recounted by the Court of Appeals, we draw from that court's description, which, based on our own review of the record, is an accurate and thorough overview of the pertinent facts. See id. at 137, 225 P.3d 830 ( ). Officer Ray, who was familiar with defendant and suspected that defendant was involved in dealing methamphetamine, saw defendant talking to a person who was a suspected drug user.1 Ray then observed defendant get into his car and drive away without wearing a seat belt, which is a traffic violation. ORS 811.210(4). Ray, and another officer with him, then stopped defendant for that violation. Because of his suspicion that defendant had just engaged in drug activity, Ray called for a canine unit. Officer Hulke, along with his drug-detection dog, Benny, responded. With defendant out of the car, Hulke had Benny smell the car's exterior as Ray finished writing defendant a ticket. Benny “alerted”— i.e., indicated the presence of a drug scent—at the driver's side door handle. After Ray advised defendant of Benny's alert, defendant denied that the car contained drugs or related paraphernalia, but said that Benny might have alerted because a relative might have smoked marijuana in the car earlier. Ray asked defendant if he would consent to a search of the car, and defendant refused. Ray then searched the car and found methamphetamine residue on a pipe that was inside a fanny pack on the seat of the car.
As described, defendant moved to suppress the pipe, contending that Ray lacked probable cause to search his car because Benny's alert was not a reliable basis for a belief that seizable evidence of drugs was probably in defendant's car at the time of the search. At the hearing, the state presented testimony from Hulke describing Benny's training and certification, his field performance, and his later recertification. The state also presented testimony from Officer Fyfe, a master dog trainer who tests and certifies drug-detection dogs for the Oregon Police Canine Association (OPCA), which is the organization that certified Benny as a drug-detection dog. The OPCA is a private organization that, as the record shows and the trial court found, currently is the only organization in Oregon that certifies drug-detection dogs. Using the so-called “play-reward” method of training, the OPCA certifies dogs and their handler-officers as a team, and encourages the officers to maintain records of ongoing training and field deployments. The certification is purely private; no Oregon statutes or regulations set standards for or otherwise govern drug-detection dog training and certification or record-keeping. To rebut the state's evidence, defendant presented expert testimony from a chemist, Woodford, who discussed the “science” of drug odor detection by dogs and who has expertise in the general area of the methods used to train drug-detection dogs. Woodford did not offer an opinion as to Benny's reliability specifically; he instead offered his opinion as to the reliability generally of dogs trained through the play-reward method and other methods.
Because of the importance of the expert testimony to the issue before us, we quote the Court of Appeals' description of it, which began by summarizing the “play-reward” method used to train Benny and most drug-detection dogs used by police in the United States:
“Defendant provided expert testimony from Woodford, a chemist who had patented a pseudo-scent, methyl benzolate, which is the scent dogs detect from cocaine. He testified that he has consulted with various federal agencies and the military concerning dogs that are trained to detect drugs and explosives. He indicated that the ‘highest level’ of training involves ‘imprinting’ a dog and using food rewards. This method takes three to four months and involves taking dogs into clean rooms in which cans with odors inside them, including drug odors and distractor odors, are placed on wheels. The dogs do not work with handlers at that point. Eventually, when a dog becomes ‘imprinted’ to alerting to the drug odors, it is ready to work with a handler. Woodford testified that all drug-detection dogs have high rates of false positives, because the scents that they detect in the drugs also are detectable in a number of legal substances, including foods and perfumes. He further testified that dogs trained in this manner cost $10,000 to $15,000. He concluded that the imprinting method was ‘generally accepted’ as ‘the scientifically based way to do it.’
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Martin
...before arresting the person, it must be more likely than not that the unlawful explanation is the actual explanation. State v. Foster, 350 Or. 161, 173, 252 P.3d 292 (2011). Here, Kula stopped and arrested defendant because he believed that she had violated PCC 14A.40.050 and ORS 167.007. P......
-
State v. Sunderman
...the facts articulated in support of probable cause must be assessed in a common-sense and realistic fashion." State v. Foster , 350 Or. 161, 169, 252 P.3d 292 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, "in order to search containers within a vehicle," such as defenda......
-
State v. Aguilar
...that, consistent with her statement, defendant had just taken off her seatbelt did not negate probable cause. See State v. Foster , 350 Or. 161, 173, 252 P.3d 292 (2011) (observation made by officer that is consistent with prohibited conduct "does not have to eliminate any possibility of an......
-
Grimm v. State
..., the Supreme Court of Oregon considered the appropriate standard for assessing a drug-detecting dog's reliability in State v. Foster , 350 Or. 161, 252 P.3d 292 (2011). It held that "an alert by a properly trained and reliable drug dog can provide probable cause to search." Id. at 301. In ......
-
Probable Cause and the Sniff Factor
...C. F. (1955). Dogs in war, police work, and on patrol. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 3, 385–395. State v. Foster, 252 P.3d 292, 298–300 (Or. 2011).Taslitz, A. E. (1990). Does the cold nose know?: The unscientific myth of dog scent lineup. Hastings Law nal, 42, 15–28. Texas v. Bro......