OREGON SUPREME COURT

Oregon v. A.J.C. S061191

Dept. Human Services v. S.M.S061386

FACTS: Oregon v. A.J.C.

• A.J.C. calls/texts V.: bringing gun to school tomorrow to shoot her

• Next day: V. tells school counselor & principal of threat

• Principal takes A.J.C. and backpack to office• Mother, family friend, and deputy sheriff in office• Principal searches backpack—A.J.C. doesn’t consent

or object• Finds .45 caliber unloaded semi-automatic handgun &

ammunition

Washington Co. Juvenile Court

• A.J.C. charged with unlawful possession of gun; unlawful use of weapon; menacing

• Moves to suppress evidence: product of illegal search

• Judge James Fun denies motion to suppress• A.J.C. adjudicated delinquent

Oregon Constitution

Article I, Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.–

Oregon Court of Appeals

• A.J.C. appeals• Court of Appeals affirms– Principal had specific, articulable facts that

backpack contained gun & posed immediate threat to V. or others at school

– Search of backpack more reasonable option than searching A.J.C. to dissipate safety threat

• Oregon Supreme Court allows review

Question

Is a warrantless search of a closed container [backpack] justified by the school safety exception to the warrant requirement, when the potential immediate safety threat has been eliminated by the seizure of the container?

Notes

• Briefs not available to public• Justice Brewer recused from Supreme Court

consideration and decision• Will Oregon Supreme Court continue to align

Article I, Section 9, with 4th Amendment in public school setting?

Facts: DHS v. S.M.

• DHS files petition pursuant to ORS 419B.100• Parents admit conditions/circumstances

alleged• DHS named children’s guardian; DHS places

children with relatives

Statutory Powers of Guardian/Court

Guardian may “. . .authorize ordinary medical. . . care and treatment for the ward. . .” ORS 419B.373(4)

Court may direct wards “be examined or treated by a physician. . .” ORS 419B.352

Oregon Immunization Laws

Every child through grade 12 must submit statement to local health department “certifying the immunizations the child has received”

ORA physician statement exempting child from immunizations because of medical diagnosis

ORA parent statement that child has not been immunized “because the child is being reared as an adherent to a religion the teachings of which are opposed to such immunization.” ORS 433.267(1)

Marion County Juvenile Court

• DHS asks court to have children immunized• Parents object on religious grounds• Judge Julia A. Philbrook orders immunization• Mother seeks stay of Judge Philbrook’s order• Judge grants stay

COURT OF APPEALS

• Parents appeal• Court of Appeals affirms– Juvenile court and custodian/guardian have broad

authority to make health-care decisions for wards– Only “fit” parents have right to make decisions related to

child

• Supreme Court allows review

Questions

• Does “ordinary” in ORS 419B.373(4) mean typical for general population or for particular child?

• If “ordinary” means typical for general population, is it limited to remedial, not prophylactic, care?

• Does juvenile dependency code give DHS authority to immunize child over parent’s objection?

ORS 419B.373(4)

Guardian may “. . .authorize ordinary medical. . . care and treatment for the ward. . .”

NOTES

• Briefs not available to public• Justice Brewer recused from Supreme Court

consideration and decision• Process complicated; media coverage not

necessarily accurate

Conclusion

• Cases highlight different approaches appellate judges take when reviewing cases.

• Cases offer opportunities for policy discussions, such as. . .

• Should courts protect the identity of juveniles?• Should interpretation of Article I, Section 9, parallel

interpretation of the 4th Amendment?• Did the legislature intend to take away parents’ rights

over immunizations when children in state custody? If so, is that the appropriate policy?