State v. Snitkin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a dog sniff of a package at a Federal Express Office was not a search
• a narcotics dog’s sniff of the airspace around a closed container was not a Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7 “search.”
• narcotics detection dog’s sniff of a package held not to be a fourth amendment search
• “We emphasize that, absent exigent circumstances, consent, or some other well-established warrant exception, a valid search warrant is still required to open private containers!!]”
• canine sniff of package in cargo holding room not a search under Hawaii Constitution; however, court must still determine reasonableness of dog's use in particular circumstances
• whether use of narcotics detection dog was \reasonable” \should be determined by balancing the State's interest in using the dog against the individual’s interest in freedom from unreasonable government intrusions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).