## Facts

- Lanes, a juvenile, was investigated for burglary of a habitation and later certified to be tried as an adult.
- A police officer arrested Lanes at his high school and transported him to a police station.
- Police obtained Lanes’s fingerprints pursuant to a juvenile-court “consent order.”
- The juvenile court issued the order without making a probable-cause determination.
- Fingerprint evidence was used to link Lanes to the burglary.
- After an initial conviction was reversed on appeal, Lanes was retried, convicted again, and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution and the Fourth Amendment require probable cause for the seizure/arrest of a juvenile to obtain fingerprints.
2. Whether a juvenile-court “consent order” issued without a probable-cause finding can substitute for probable cause to authorize the seizure and fingerprinting.
3. Whether fingerprints obtained through such a seizure must be suppressed as unlawfully obtained evidence.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the probable-cause requirement applies fully to juveniles under both Article I, § 9 and the Fourth Amendment.
- The juvenile-court “consent order,” lacking any probable-cause determination, could not constitutionally justify Lanes’s seizure for fingerprinting.
- Because the seizure was unlawful, the resulting fingerprint evidence was inadmissible.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile status does not lessen constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures.
- A seizure or arrest to obtain identifying evidence such as fingerprints requires probable cause under Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.
- A court order that is not supported by a judicial probable-cause determination cannot serve as a substitute for probable cause.
- Evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional seizure is subject to suppression as tainted evidence.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that juveniles receive the same probable-cause protections as adults and that fingerprint evidence obtained through a seizure authorized only by a juvenile-court order lacking a probable-cause finding must be excluded, requiring reversal and remand.


Lanes v. State, 767 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)