State v. Daniels

Parentheticals

• reasoning that the value of an officer’s “training and experience” testimony often depends on whether the officer has persuasively explained the basis of his or her knowledge

  State v. Gibson

• addressing sufficiency of affiant officer’s “training and experience”-based averments regarding pedophiles’ purported retention of sexually explicit material over a period of several years

  State v. Ulizzi

• addressing sufficiency of affiant officer's "training and experience"-based averments regarding pedophiles' purported retention of sexually explicit material over a period of several years

  State v. Ulizzi

• knowledge that is based on common sense does not need any reference to training and experience

  State v. Smith

• as officer’s testimony based on training and experience becomes more esoteric, specialized, counterintuitive, or scientific, increasingly persuasive explanation is necessary

  State v. Dunning

• “[T]he phrase ‘training and experience’ * * * is not a magical incantation with the power to imbue speculation, stereotype, or pseudoscience with an impenetrable armor of veracity.”

  State v. Walker

• "The phrase 'training and experience' *** is not a magical incantation with the power to imbue speculation, stereotype, or pseudo-science with an impenetrable armor of veracity."

  State v. Toll

• “‘Probable cause’ is a more rigorous standard than mere suspicion; even a well-warranted suspicion does not suffice, because ‘a suspicion, no matter how well founded, does not rise to the level of probable cause.’” (Quoting State v. Verdine, 290 Or 553, 557, 624 P2d 580 (1981).

  State v. Huff