In the Matter of K.A.M., a Youth.
K.A.M., Petitioner on Review. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review,
and submitted May 12, 2017
review from the Court of Appeals CC 070424JB; CA A154130
Christa Obold-Eshleman, Portland, argued the cause and fled
the briefs for petitioner on review.
Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause and fled the brief for respondent on review.
Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General,
and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Levick, Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and
Roy Pulvers, Holland & Knight LLP, Portland, fled the
brief for amicus curiae Juvenile Law Center.
Balmer, Chief Justice, and Kistler, Walters, Landau,
Nakamoto, Flynn, and Duncan, Justices. [**]
Or. 806] Case Summary:
moved to suppress evidence obtained after an officer entered
a bedroom, told youth's companion that she needed to
"stay off the meth, " asked their names, and then
asked youth and his companion whether they had anything
illegal on them. Youth argued that the officer's actions
constituted an unlawful stop for purposes of Article I,
section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied
youth's motion, finding that no stop had occurred. The
Court of Appeals affirmed.
the circumstances, youth reasonably concluded that the
officer had stopped him. The officer's unexplained entry
into the bedroom and his accusation that the companion was
using or had recently used methamphetamine conveyed that the
companion and youth were suspected of illegal drug use and
were not free to leave until the officer had completed his
inquiry. In addition, the presence of multiple officers in
the house, as well as the officer's question whether they
had anything illegal on them, added to the coercive pressure.
decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of
the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to
the circuit court.
Or. 807] KISTLER, J.
question in this case is whether youth was stopped during the
search of a drug house when a detective came upon youth and a
friend in one of the bedrooms, told youth's friend to
"stay off the meth, " asked them their names, and
then asked whether they had anything illegal on them. Because
the trial court ruled that no stop occurred, it denied
youth's motion to suppress evidence discovered during the
encounter. The Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, agreeing
that no stop had occurred. State v. K.A.M., 279
Or.App. 191, 379 P.3d 686 (2016). Because we conclude that a
stop occurred, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision and
the trial court's judgment. We remand the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.
the facts from the hearing on youth's suppression motion
and state them consistently with the trial court's
ruling. Five Medford police and probation officers
were conducting a "parole sweep, " looking for
persons who had violated their probation or parole. The
officers had information that a suspected parole violator was
in a single-family house on 11th Street and went to the house
looking for her. A person who had rented the house gave the
officers permission to look through it. One of the officers,
Detective Schwab, testified that the house was a known drug
house. When asked to describe the condition of the house,
Schwab testified that it was ...