In the Matter of J. D. H., a Youth .
J. D. H., Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
and submitted November 8, 2017
Yamhill County Circuit Court 16JU02137; John L. Collins,
Tiffany Keast argued the cause and fled the brief for
Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent. Also on the brief was Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr,
Summary: Youth appeals a judgment finding him within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court for acts that, if
committed by an adult, would constitute two counts of
attempted assault in the first degree and one count of
attempted unlawful use of a weapon. Youth assigns error to
the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress
evidence-viz., his journal-which police officers
obtained when his mother gave them her consent to search his
room. Held: The trial court's determination that
youth's mother gave officers consent to search
youth's room, including a search for and of youth's
journal, was supported by evidence in the record.
Additionally, youth's mother's access to the items in
youth's room and control over the contents of youth's
room, coupled with the particular parent-child relationship
in this case, led the Court of Appeals to conclude that the
trial court did not err when it concluded that youth's
mother had actual authority to consent to a search of the
items in youth's room, including youth's journal.
Or.App. 365] TOOKEY, J.
juvenile delinquency case, youth appeals a judgment finding
him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for acts
that, if committed by an adult, would constitute two counts
of attempted assault in the first degree, ORS 161.405; ORS
163.185, and one count of attempted unlawful use of a weapon,
ORS 161.405; ORS 166.220. In his first assignment of error,
youth challenges the trial court's denial of his motion
to suppress his journal and its contents, which included
plans to engage in a mass shooting at his high school.
Specifically, youth argues that his mother, who consented to
police officers conducting a warrantless search of
youth's room, did not consent to a search of "closed
containers within [youth's] room"-viz., the
journal itself and a guitar case within which the journal was
found. Additionally, youth asserts that, even if his mother
did consent to the search, she lacked "actual
authority" to do so. For the reasons that follow, we
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained
through the state's search and seizure, we are bound by
the trial court's findings of historical fact 'if
there is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record
to support those findings.'" State v.
Voyles, 280 Or.App. 579, 581, 382 P.3d 583, rev
den, 360 Or. 751 (2016) (quoting State v. Ehly,
317 Or. 66, 75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993)). "If findings are
not made on all pertinent historical facts, 'we will
presume that the trial court found facts in a manner
consistent with its ultimate conclusion.'"
Id. (quoting State v. Stevens, 311 Or. 119,
127, 806 P.2d 92 (1991)).
the above factual standard of review, we state the relevant
facts from the trial court's findings and the
record." Id. When police officers conducted the
search at issue in this case, youth was 17 years old and
living with his mother. Youth had his own bedroom in his
mother's house, but he did not have "exclusive
control over [his] bedroom and its contents." To the
contrary, youth's mother "considered] [294 Or.App.
366] that she has control over the entire house and all
[that's] in it, including [in youth's] bedroom"
and had access to "[youth's] things in his
room." Youth's mother "ultimately ** * set the
rules" at the house "because it is [her]
home," and youth understood that his mother was "in
charge of the house and he follow[ed] her direction[s] or
mother went into youth's bedroom "at will ** * on an
almost daily basis," to, among other things, "go
and get dirty dishes, clean, [pick up] dirty clothes [, ]
that kind of thing." Youth never protested his
mother's entries into his room, asked her to leave or not
to look at or in anything in the room, or "expressed any
other expectation of privacy from his mother." The door
to youth's bedroom had no locks or other barriers. There
were "no private areas in the house."
as a result of youth's probations in separate juvenile
cases, youth's mother was "contractually bound to
supervise [youth] in their home and elsewhere and required to
report any variance from his probation conditions to [his]
juvenile probation officer." Youth's mother was
"actively involved in his supervision." Youth's
probations also required youth "to follow his
mother's reasonable directions at home."
respect to the guitar case and journal that were searched in
this case, youth's mother was aware that youth had a
guitar in a canvas guitar case that had been given to youth
by his pastor. Youth had never told his mother that she could
not open his guitar case, but also had never given her
permission to allow a search of the guitar case. Youth's
mother testified that, "if youth had a journal or a
diary, youth had not given her permission to read it, nor had
he given her "permission to allow other persons to go
into his room and search his things and go through his room
search at issue in this case occurred on or about March 3,
2016. Police officers went to youth's home to take youth
into custody on probation violation detainers and also to
question youth regarding allegations that he was planning a
mass shooting at his school. After police officers were let
into the home by a male friend of youth's mother, an
officer [294 Or.App. 367] asked youth's mother if youth
was home. Youth's mother told them "no." An
officer then asked to look in youth's room to see if
youth was there and youth's mother said, "That's
fine." Officers looked in youth's room, and youth
was not there.
officer then told youth's mother "to some degree
about the school shooting plan investigation" that the
officers were conducting and "asked for consent to
search [youth's] room." The trial court found that
youth's mother said "something like, 'Knock
yourself out,' 'Go for it,' or words to that
effect." At no time did she "express any
limitations regarding [youth's] room, its contents or any
other limitation on her authority to consent to search"
or "protest  the officers searching [youth's] room
or seizing items before, during or after the search."
youth's mother consented to the search, officers entered
youth's room "looking for firearms, equipment that
might be used to chain fences, bombs or bomb making materials
and [a] black notebook or journal" that they had been
informed contained plans for a school shooting. One of the
officers found a black journal in an outside pocket of the
canvas guitar case. The journal was held shut by an elastic
band. The officer then ...