State v. K. A. M., 401 P.3d 774

Background

Police conducted a parole sweep of a house suspected to be a drug house; renter consented to officers searching the premises.
Detective Schwab (plainclothes with a raid vest) entered a back bedroom where youth (17 years, 9 months) and a young woman were waiting to see if they could live there.
Schwab did not tell them why he was there or that the officers had permission to search; he told the young woman "you need to stay off the meth," asked their names, and asked if they had anything illegal.
Youth then volunteered a pipe when asked; the pipe contained methamphetamine residue.
Trial court denied suppression, finding no stop occurred; Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed whether Schwab’s conduct amounted to a stop under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stop occurred when Schwab entered bedroom, accused occupant of meth use, and asked questions	Youth: reasonable person would feel not free to leave given entry, accusation, other officers searching; age should factor into perception	State: ordinary questioning and ID request are not a seizure absent other show of authority; no stop occurred	Court: Schwab’s unexplained entry into a private bedroom, accusatory statement, question about illegal items, and other officers searching together constituted a stop
Whether youth’s age must be considered in the stop analysis	Youth: J.D.B. requires considering age (17y9m) when assessing whether person felt free to leave	State: did not press age-based claim; not preserved below	Court: did not decide definitively; noted J.D.B. narrow and youth didn’t preserve; age not necessary here because totality of other circumstances show a stop
Whether the stop (if found) was justified by reasonable suspicion	Youth: stop was without reasonable suspicion so suppression warranted	State: factual issues remain about reasonable suspicion; request remand for trial court fact-finding	Court: remanded to trial court to resolve fact disputes and determine whether reasonable suspicion justified the stop
Whether federal Fourth Amendment argument could be considered	Youth: also argued Fourth Amendment violation	State: not raised in Court of Appeals so waived on review	Court: declined to consider Fourth Amendment claim on certiorari review

Key Cases Cited

State v. K. A. M., 279 Or. App. 191, 379 P.3d 686 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (Court of Appeals decision upholding trial court suppression ruling)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) (court held youth’s age may be relevant to Miranda custody analysis)
State v. Backstrand, 354 Or. 392, 313 P.3d 1084 (2013) (request for identification generally not a seizure unless other conduct conveys coercive detention)
State v. Fair, 353 Or. 588, 302 P.3d 417 (2013) (officer actions inside a home can have greater coercive effect than in public)
State v. Anderson, 354 Or. 440, 313 P.3d 1113 (2013) (approach to person at a house, with explanation, may not be a seizure)
State v. Highley, 354 Or. 459, 313 P.3d 1068 (2013) (circumstances where a person exercised freedom to walk away relevant to seizure analysis)
State v. Jackson, 268 Or. App. 139, 342 P.3d 119 (2014) (telling a person they committed an offense can constitute a stop)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 854 P.2d 421 (1993) (officers’ requests related to removal from premises may not constitute a seizure)
State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 745 P.2d 757 (1987) (guest’s privacy rights in a premises are derivative of renter/owner)
State v. Ghim, 360 Or. 425, 381 P.3d 789 (2016) (procedural bar to raising an unpreserved Fourth Amendment argument on review)