State v. H.K.D.S.

Article I, Section 9 establishes the right “to be secure in [our] persons…against unreasonable search, or seizure,” and case law further establishes that “warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within one of the few specifically established and limited exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Biss, 363 Or 426, 430-1, 326 P3d 559 (2014).

Youth appealed the decision by the juvenile court that the youth was “found to be within the juvenile’s court’s delinquency jurisdiction for an act, that if committed by an adult would constitute first-degree sexual abuse.” Youth assigned error to the juvenile’s court denial of a motion to suppress evidence and contended that the evidence—a DNA swab—was obtained without consent in violation of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The state argued that a parent could consent to the search of the child’s person even if the child objected to the search and that providing consent for law enforcement to search their children falls under the “fundamental liberty interest in parenting their children." The court found that the search of the youth’s person violated Article I, Section 9, and a parent’s consent does not override the objection of the youth. Article I, Section 9 establishes the right “to be secure in [our] persons…against unreasonable search, or seizure,” and case law further establishes that “warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within one of the few specifically established and limited exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Reversed and remanded.