Leslie A. Shoebotham’s law review article concerning canine drug-detection sniffs, Has the Fourth Amendment Gone to the Dogs? Unreasonable Expansion of Canine Sniff Doctrine to Include Sniffs of the Home, 88 Or. L. Rev. 829 (2014), was recently cited by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Eichers, 853 N.W.2d 114, ___ (2014). Eichers involved a canine sniff of a mailed package at a private mailing facility, which the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court cited Professor Shoebotham’s article to contrast the privacy interests at stake in a false-positive canine sniff of a mailed package—the package contents would simply be rewrapped and mailed—and a false-positive canine sniff of a home, quoting Prof. Shoebotham’s assertion that the resulting physical search would be both “probing and expansive.”
Leslie A. Shoebotham currently serves as Victor H. Schiro Distinguished Professor of Law. Her areas of practice and expertise include Constitutional Criminal Procedure, Criminal Law, Torts, Toxic Torts, and Environmental Law.