OREGON SUPREME COURT Oregon v. A.J.C. S 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 4 th 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” OR A physician statement exempting child from immunizations because of medical diagnosis OR A 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 (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 4 th Amendment? Did the legislature intend to take away parents’ rights over immunizations when children in state custody? If so, is that the appropriate policy?