J.M.A. v. State

Mrs. Blankenship was a foster parent, licensed and compensated by the state, who became concerned that her foster child, J.M.A. (defendant), was involved with drug use. Children that Blankenship did not know were coming to her house briefly and then leaving. Blankenship began searching J.M.A.’s room. One day, while Blankenship was eavesdropping on one of J.M.A.’s telephone calls, she heard J.M.A. saying that he was almost out of marijuana and that he needed more pills. Subsequently, while searching J.M.A.’s room, Blankenship found a pipe and, later, found a bag of marijuana in the pocket of one of J.M.A.’s jackets. Blankenship called J.M.A.’s social worker for advice. The social worker came to Blankenship’s home with a police officer dressed in plain clothes. Blankenship, the social worker, and the officer confronted J.M.A. about the drugs, without having notified him of his rights. J.M.A. acknowledged owning the jacket that contained the marijuana, but he denied knowing about the marijuana. J.M.A. was taken to a detention center until a juvenile court could review the matter. J.M.A. moved to have the evidence against him gained by Blankenship's eavesdropping on his phone call and searching his room suppressed. The motion to suppress the evidence was denied. Subsequently, J.M.A. was adjudicated delinquent for an undefined term up until the age of 19 and housed in a correctional institution. J.M.A. appealed, seeking reversal of the decision not to suppress the evidence and the delinquency adjudication. J.M.A. argued that the suppression should have been granted because Blankenship, serving as a state agent, conducted searches without a warrant in violation of constitutional restrictions at the state and federal level against unreasonable searches and seizures. The state asserted that as a foster parent, Blankenship was not considered a state agent under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.