Case Title: State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. W. P.

Citation: 

Docket Number: S055687

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
FILED: February 5, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of W. L. P,
a
Minor Child.
STATE OF OREGON ex rel DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent on Review, 
v. 
W. P.,
Petitioner on Review.
(CC 07201J; CA A136056; SC S055687)
En Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and
submitted September 18, 2008.
James A. Palmer,
Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.
Anna M. Joyce,
Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent
on review.  With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary
H. Williams, Solicitor General.
BALMER, J.
The decision of
the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.
*Appeal from Lane
County Circuit Court, Eveleen Henry, Judge. 216 Or App 555, 173 P3d 841
(2007).
BALMER, J.
We allowed review in this case to
consider whether the exclusionary rule, under which illegally obtained evidence
is excluded from certain court proceedings, applies to a parent's motion to
suppress evidence in a juvenile dependency proceeding involving the parent's
child.  The juvenile court determined that it does not and therefore denied a
motion to suppress filed by child's father.  The court then found child to be
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and placed child in the custody
of the Department of Human Services (DHS).  Father appealed, arguing that the
court had erred in denying his motion to suppress.  The Court of Appeals
affirmed without opinion.  State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. W. P.,
216 Or App 555, 173 P3d 841 (2007).  We allowed father's petition for review
and now affirm.
In March 2007, in connection with a
drug investigation involving mother, police executed a search warrant of the
home of mother, father, and child.  During that search, officers found drugs in
the home and on father's person.  Both parents were arrested, and the police
contacted DHS concerning child.  Due to both parents' arrests and the fact that
drugs were found within child's reach, DHS placed child in foster care and
filed a juvenile dependency petition, requesting that the court take
jurisdiction over child.  ORS 419B.100.(1) 
Pursuant to that petition, the juvenile court conducted a jurisdictional and
dispositional hearing on May 22, 2007.  See ORS 419B.305(1) (requiring
hearing within 60 days of filing of petition).  At the hearing, father moved to
suppress evidence found in the search, claiming that the search warrant was not
supported by probable cause.  The juvenile court denied the motion because it
concluded that the exclusionary rule does not apply in juvenile dependency
proceedings.  Because of that ruling, the court did not reach the issue whether
the search warrant was valid.
After the juvenile court denied
father's motion to suppress, father consented to proceed on stipulated facts,
and the juvenile court found child to be within the jurisdiction of the court.(2) 
The court then proceeded to make a dispositional determination.  See ORS
419B.325 (after hearing required by ORS 419B.305, court must enter order
directing disposition of case).  The court made child a ward of the state,
placed child in the legal custody of DHS, determined that it was in child's
best interest to be placed in foster care, and ordered father to participate in
various services, including drug treatment and psychological evaluation.(3)
Father appealed the juvenile court's judgment
of jurisdiction, arguing that the juvenile court had erred in refusing to apply
the exclusionary rule to juvenile dependency cases.  As noted, the Court of
Appeals affirmed without opinion, and father petitioned this court for review. 
We allowed review to consider father's claim that, under Article I, section 9,
of the Oregon Constitution(4)
or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,(5)
the juvenile court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence seized in
the search.
We begin by describing the statutory
basis for juvenile dependency proceedings, because those statutes establish
specific rights and duties of father, child, and the state that are central to
our consideration of father's constitutional claims.  ORS 419B.090 creates the
juvenile court and articulates the state policies that proceedings in that
court are intended to advance.  The state's policy "recognize[s] that
children are individuals who have legal rights" and that those rights
include "[p]ermanency with a safe family[,]" "[f]reedom from
physical, sexual or emotional abuse or exploitation[,]" and "[f]reedom
from substantial neglect of basic needs."  ORS 419B.090(2)(a).  The
statute further states that parents "have a duty to afford their children
[those] rights" and to remove "any impediment to [the parents']
ability to perform parental duties that afford [those] rights to their
children."  ORS 419B.090(2)(b).  Moreover, if a parent "fails to
fulfill [those] duties, the juvenile court may determine that it is in the best
interests of the child to remove the child from the parent * * * either
temporarily or permanently."  Id.  In juvenile dependency proceedings,
the court is to "guard the liberty interest of parents protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," including the
right "to direct the upbringing of their children," while also
"protect[ing] the rights and interests of children[.]"  ORS
419B.090(4).
In furtherance of those state goals,
the juvenile court "has exclusive original jurisdiction" in any case
involving a child "[w]hose condition or circumstances are such as to
endanger the welfare of the [child] * * *."  ORS 419B.100(1)(c).  If DHS
determines that a child's condition or circumstances endanger the welfare of
the child, DHS files a petition asking the juvenile court to take jurisdiction
over the child, and the court holds a jurisdictional hearing.  ORS 419B.305 - 419B.310. 
If the court determines the child to be within its jurisdiction, the court
makes the child a ward of the court.  ORS 419B.328.  The court then determines
whether it would be "in the best interest and welfare" of the child
to be placed under protective supervision, and, if it so determines, the court
may place the child with the parent (subject to court and DHS supervision) or
in some other setting, such as with a relative or in foster care.  ORS 419B.331
(describing protective supervision).  As noted, if the juvenile court
determines that the child is within the jurisdiction of the court, the court
must conduct hearings at least every 12 months to review the appropriate
placement of the child.  ORS 419B.470(6).  Juvenile courts administering those
statutes "act in parens patriae, focusing on family unity and the
best interests of the child."  State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Geist,
310 Or 176, 189, 796 P2d 1193 (1990) (footnote omitted).
With that background, we turn to
father's argument that the evidence that he possessed drugs should have been
excluded from the juvenile court jurisdictional hearing.  We begin with
father's state constitutional claims.  See Sterling v. Cupp, 290 Or 611,
614, 625 P2d 123 (1981) (court analyzes state claims before federal claims).  As
noted, the juvenile court did not decide whether the evidence was obtained in
violation of father's constitutional rights, because it concluded that, even if
the evidence had been unlawfully obtained, it should not be excluded.  For
purposes of this opinion, therefore, we assume that the evidence was unlawfully
obtained.  Oregon courts have consistently held that evidence obtained from a
person in violation of Article I, section 9, may not be used against that
person in a criminal proceeding.  See, e.g., State v. Davis, 295
Or 227, 666 P2d 802 (1983) (so holding).  Indeed, the exclusionary rule is
often described as "the rule excluding [evidence] from criminal
prosecutions," id. at 231 (emphasis added), and as protecting
the "right not to be prosecuted upon evidence [illegally] secured." 
Id. at 235 (emphasis added).  The issue in this case is whether the rule
that this court has applied to motions to suppress by defendants in criminal
cases also should be applied to a motion to suppress by a parent in a juvenile
dependency proceeding.(6)
This court explained the analytical
approach for resolving that issue in State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Rogers, 314
Or 114, 839 P2d 127 (1992).  In Rogers, the issue was whether the
exclusionary rule should be applied in a probation revocation hearing in a
juvenile delinquency case.  The juvenile's probation had been revoked, in part,
because he had unlawfully possessed a gun, and he moved to suppress the gun,
arguing that it had been seized in violation of Article I, section 9.  Id.
at 116.  This court began by noting that, in earlier decisions, the court had
protected the individual's right to be secure against unlawful search or
seizure "through the sanction of suppression of evidence in criminal
prosecutions."  Id. at 120 (emphasis added).  It recognized,
however, that criminal prosecutions are "not necessarily the only
proceedings in which the sanction of suppression of evidence is required to
vindicate an individual's Article I, section 9 rights[.]"  Id.  Rather,
if the individual's "liberty interest is sufficiently analogous to the
liberty interest at stake in traditional criminal prosecutions that the reasons
for the sanction of suppression of evidence are equally applicable," then the
evidence should be suppressed.  Id.  In Rogers, the juvenile was
"at liberty" before he was found to have violated his probation;
after the probation revocation, he was "in the custody of the state"
and had "lost his liberty" for reasons that were comparable to those
in a criminal proceeding.  Id.  For those reasons, this court concluded
that the juvenile's liberty interest in the probation revocation proceeding was
"sufficiently analogous" to a defendant's liberty interest that is at
stake in a traditional criminal prosecution and that the physical evidence at
issue therefore should have been suppressed.  Id.
We turn to a consideration of the
nature of father's liberty interest in this juvenile dependency proceeding. 
Obviously, this is not a criminal proceeding.  See Geist, 310 Or at 188 (holding
that proceeding to terminate parental rights, which is one possible outcome of
a juvenile dependency proceeding, is not a criminal prosecution).  Neither is it
like the probation revocation proceeding in Rogers, because father does
not face incarceration or similar criminal law sanctions as a result of this
proceeding.  The proceeding does not involve any effort by the state to punish
the parent for wrongdoing.  Rather, in a juvenile dependency proceeding, the
welfare of the child is the court's primary consideration, and the state's
purpose in initiating such a proceeding is to intervene as necessary to protect
the child.  See ORS 419B.100(1)(c) (child found to be within
jurisdiction of court if child's condition or circumstances "endanger the
welfare" of child); ORS 419B.331 (permitting court to place child under
protective supervision "[w]hen the court determines it would be in the
best interest and welfare of a ward"); ORS 419B.476 (requiring that court
"consider the ward's health and safety the paramount concerns" at
permanency hearing).  Because this case does not implicate father's liberty
interest in remaining free from state custody, Rogers does not require
the court to exclude the evidence based on father's motion, even if the evidence
was unlawfully seized.
Father argues that the juvenile
dependency proceeding interferes with his liberty interest in controlling the
care and custody of his child.  See O'Donnell-Lamont and Lamont, 337 Or
86, 100, 91 P3d 721 (2004) (recognizing parents' interest, protected by the Due
Process Clause, in making decisions concerning their children); ORS 419B.090(4)
(parent has "liberty interest" in "direct[ing] the
upbringing" of a child).  This is a juvenile dependency proceeding in
which the juvenile court determined that child was within the jurisdiction of
the court.  The court temporarily removed child from father's home, but, as discussed
above, child can be returned to father's home if father complies with the
juvenile court's orders and participates in the services provided by DHS so as
to make it possible for child to safely return home.  See ORS 419B.470;
ORS 419B.476 (describing procedures and standards for juvenile court decisions
regarding status of child that is within the jurisdiction of the court).   
Although any restriction by the state
on father's control over the upbringing of child interferes with father's liberty
interest, the restriction at issue here -- an order determining that child is
within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court -- is temporary and conditional. 
In a criminal prosecution, the defendant himself or herself is subject to a
final adjudication that may result in incarceration and immediate loss of
physical liberty, possible criminal fines, and temporary or permanent
restrictions on travel, association, and behavior.  The nature of the
defendant's liberty interest at stake in a criminal prosecution is such that,
as this court stated in Davis, the court will "deny[] the state the
use of [illegally seized] evidence * * * against the persons whose rights were
violated[.]"  295 Or at 237.  But the interest at stake in this juvenile
dependency proceeding is qualitatively different.  The proceeding did not
result in a final determination depriving father of a constitutionally
protected liberty interest, such as could result from other criminal or civil
proceedings.
Moreover, we do not consider a parent's
interest in controlling a child's upbringing in a vacuum.  As the statutes
discussed above demonstrate, a child also has specific legal rights and
interests, and the state initiates juvenile dependency proceedings to protect
those rights.  In exercising jurisdiction over a child, the juvenile court must
"protect the rights and interests" of the child, as well as the
parent's interest.  ORS 419B.090(4).  In contrast to a criminal proceeding,
where the principal interests at stake are those of the defendant and the
state, the critical interest in a juvenile dependency proceeding is that of different
person, the child.  See ORS 419B.100(1)(c) (juvenile court has exclusive
jurisdiction when child's "condition or circumstances are such as to
endanger the welfare" of child).  If the child is found to be within the
jurisdiction of the court, then court decisions as to supervision and custody
are made based on "the best interest and welfare" of the child.  ORS
419B.331.  In our view, given those distinctive aspects of a juvenile
dependency proceeding, father's interest here is not sufficiently analogous to the
interests involved in our earlier decisions to require the exclusion of
unlawfully seized evidence on father's motion. 
Although father acknowledges that
this court has applied the exclusionary rule only in criminal cases and in the
analogous setting of a juvenile delinquency probation revocation hearing, he
argues that this court's statements about the rule in earlier cases support his
position.  In particular, he points to Davis, where this court stated
that it has given effect to the prohibition on unlawful searches "by
restoring the parties to their position as if the state's officers had remained
within the limits of their authority."  295 Or at 237.  Father argues that
Davis demonstrates that the exclusionary rule prevents the state from
using any evidence secured in violation of a person's rights against that
person, whether in a criminal or civil proceeding.  He asserts that the only
way in which a court can "restor[e] the parties to their position as if
the state's officers had remained within the limits of their authority" is
to exclude the wrongfully obtained evidence from this juvenile dependency
proceeding.
Father's reliance on Davis is
misplaced.  First, Davis did not purport to state a rule that would
apply in every case.  Rather, Davis simply reviewed this court's earlier
cases (and some federal cases) discussing when the exclusionary rule had and
had not been applied, id. at 233-37, and then attempted to summarize
those holdings in the sentence that father cited.  However, every Oregon case
that the court cited involved the application of the exclusionary rule in a criminal
proceeding, and Davis itself was a criminal case.  Thus, the holding in Davis
provides little guidance with respect to the application of the exclusionary
rule to other proceedings.
Second, a closer examination of the
statement upon which father relies shows that it does not support his position
here.  The court stated in Davis that protections against illegal
searches should be "given effect" by "restoring the parties to
their position" as if the illegal search had not occurred.  295 Or at 237 (emphasis
added).  In Davis, as in other criminal cases, the remedy of exclusion
makes sense, because the persons (or "parties") whose interests are
involved in the criminal prosecution -- the state and the defendant -- are the
same persons who were involved in the illegal search.  However, in a juvenile
dependency proceeding, as discussed in detail above, the dispute involves not
just the state and the person whose Article I, section 9, rights were violated in
the search and who now seeks exclusion of the evidence.  Rather, an additional critical
interest is involved:  that of the child who is the subject of the proceeding. 
The statutes make the child's interests paramount on a sufficient
showing of danger to the child.  Restoring the state and the parent who invokes
the exclusionary rule to their previous "positions" may vindicate the
privacy interest of the parent whose Article I, section 9, rights were violated
and prevent the state from making use of illegally obtained evidence, but it
would do so at the potential cost of failing to protect the interests of the vulnerable
subject in a dependency proceeding, viz., the child.
Father is correct that Article I,
section 9, protects his right to be "secure" against
"unreasonable search, or seizure[,]" and nothing in the
constitutional text or in this court's cases suggests that that right is only a
rule of criminal procedure.  If the warrant here was not properly based on
probable cause, then father's rights under Article I, section 9, were
violated.  However, that conclusion does not answer the different question of
whether the juvenile court must exclude that evidence in this dependency
proceeding based on father's motion.  As we have discussed above, the answer to
that question, applying the test that this court articulated in Rogers,
depends on the nature of father's liberty interest in the juvenile court's
determination that child is within the jurisdiction of the court and whether that
interest was "sufficiently analogous to the liberty interest at stake in
traditional criminal prosecutions that the reasons for the sanction of
suppression of evidence are equally applicable[.]"  Rogers, 314
Or at 120.  As noted in our earlier analysis, father's interest in directing
the upbringing of child free from the temporary conditions imposed by the jurisdictional
order is not sufficiently analogous to the liberties and rights that may be at
stake in other proceedings to require the exclusion from the juvenile
proceeding, based on father's objection, of evidence unlawfully seized from
him.
Having
concluded that the Oregon Constitution does not require exclusion of the
evidence illegally seized from father, we now turn to whether the Fourth
Amendment requires the exclusion of such evidence in a juvenile dependency
proceeding.  The federal exclusionary rule is "a judicially created remedy
designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent
effect[.]"  United States v. Calandra, 414 US 338, 348, 94 S Ct
613, 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974).  Because of the remedial nature of the federal rule,
courts must "weigh the likely social benefits of excluding unlawfully
seized evidence against the likely costs" to determine whether it applies. 
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 US 1032, 1041, 104 S Ct 3479, 82 L Ed 2d 778
(1984).  Using that framework, the United States Supreme Court has held that
the exclusionary rule does not apply in most proceedings outside traditional
criminal prosecutions.  Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott,
524 US 357, 364, 118 S Ct 2014, 141 L Ed 2d 344 (1998) (parole revocation
proceeding); Lopez-Mendoza, 468 US at 1046 (civil deportation hearing);
United States v. Janis, 428 US 433, 454, 96 S Ct 3021, 49 L Ed 2d 1046
(1976) (civil tax proceeding); Calandra, 414 US at 351-52 (grand jury
proceeding).  But see Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 US 693, 700-02,
85 S Ct 1246, 14 L Ed 2d 170 (1965) (exclusionary rule applies in forfeiture
proceedings due to "quasi-criminal" nature of such proceedings).
In determining the likely social
benefits, the Supreme Court has stated that "the 'prime purpose' of the
[exclusionary] rule, if not the sole one, 'is to deter future unlawful police
conduct.'"  Janis, 428 US at 446 (quoting Calandra, 414
US at 347).  For example, in Janis, the government attempted to use evidence
seized by local law enforcement in a federal civil tax proceeding.  The Court
noted that the improperly seized evidence would be excluded in both a state and
a federal criminal trial, so "the local law enforcement official [wa]s
already 'punished' * * *."  428 US at 448.  Either the exclusion of the
evidence in the criminal cases would sufficiently deter law enforcement from
violating Fourth Amendment rights, in which case excluding the evidence from
civil cases would have only a marginal effect, or law enforcement would not be
deterred by exclusion, in which case the exclusionary rule is not a useful
deterrent and should not be used at all.  Id. at 453-54.  Thus, the
Court held that the exclusionary rule did not apply in a civil tax proceeding. 
Similarly, the search here was conducted by local law enforcement officials
investigating potential criminal activity.  If it was improperly seized, the
evidence will be excluded in any criminal proceedings against father.  As in Janis,
applying the exclusionary rule to the juvenile dependency proceeding would
provide little, if any, additional deterrence.
In contrast, the likely costs of
applying the exclusionary rule to juvenile dependency proceedings are great. 
In any proceeding, the cost of the exclusionary rule includes "the loss of
often probative evidence and all of the secondary costs that flow from the less
accurate or more cumbersome adjudication that therefore occurs."  Lopez-Mendoza,
468 US at 1041.  In a juvenile dependency proceeding, those "secondary
costs" include the likelihood that the state will be unable to respond
effectively to threats to a child's safety.  In cases where illegally seized
evidence is the state's only evidence of neglect or abuse, the state would be
required to leave the child, potentially, in harm's way.  Weighing the substantial
social cost of ignoring children's safety against the minimal additional deterrence
achieved by applying the exclusionary rule to juvenile dependency proceedings,
we conclude that the federal exclusionary rule does not apply in juvenile
dependency proceedings.
The decision of the Court of Appeals
and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.
1. ORS
419B.100(1) provides, in part: 
"[T]he juvenile court has exclusive original
jurisdiction in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age and:
"* * * * *
"(c) Whose condition or circumstances are
such as to endanger the welfare of the person or of others[.]"
2. The
court had entered a judgment of jurisdiction with respect to mother on May 17,
2007.  That judgment is not at issue here.  
3. Under
the statutory scheme for children who are determined to be within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the court must hold an additional hearing
at least every 12 months that the child remains in substitute care, such as
foster care.  ORS 419B.470(6).  If the juvenile court finds that the parent has
made sufficient progress so that the child can be safely returned to his care,
the court may order the child returned to the parent's home.  See ORS
419B.476(2), (4) (describing determinations to be made and dispositional
alternatives available to juvenile court following later hearings).
4. Article
I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution provides:
"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."
5. The
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
"The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
6. In
State Forester v. Umpqua River Nav., 258 Or 10, 26, 478 P2d 631 (1970),
this court declined to apply the exclusionary rule to civil proceedings.  In
that case, however, this court did not separately analyze the principles
underlying the federal exclusionary rule based on the Fourth Amendment and
those underlying the state exclusionary rule based on Article I, section 9.