NCJ Number
47403
Journal
Akron Law Review Volume: 7 Issue: 3, Dated: (SPRING, 1974) Pages: 422-438
Date Published
1974
Length
17 pages
Annotation
AN EXAMINATION IS UNDERTAKEN OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE FREE OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AS THEY RELATE TO SEARCHES OF DORMITORY FACILITIES.
Abstract
THERE ARE RELATIVELY FEW CASES DEALING WITH THE SEARCH OF A STUDENT'S DORMITORY ROOM, AND THE HOLDINGS ARE FREQUENTLY UNCLEAR BECAUSE THEY MIX CONSIDERATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY WITH THE METHODS OF PROTECTING THE RIGHT. SOME OF THE CONFUSION COULD BE AVOIDED IF THE COURTS WERE TO CONSIDER FIRST WHETHER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRIVACY APPLIES TO A UNIVERSITY DORMITORY ROOM, AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT PROCEDURES ARE APPLICABLE IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT; E.G., THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, THE STANDARDS OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. THE COURTS MUST CONSIDER WHETHER THERE ARE ANY LIMITATIONS ON WHEN AND HOW UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS MAY SEARCH A DORMITORY ROOM. SINCE THE AMENDMENT HAS NO APPLICATION TO SEARCHES AND SEIZURES CONDUCTED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, THE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ONLY STATE ACTION INFRINGING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. THE COURTS HAVE AVOIDED CLASSIFYING A DORMITORY RESIDENT'S STATUS IN THE CLASSIS TERMINOLOGY OF PROPERTY LAW; THUS SOME COMMENTATORS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT UNIVERSITIES COULD PRESERVE AN OPTION TO ENTER AT WILL. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO INVASION OF PRIVACY WHEN SOMEONE FREELY CONSENTS TO AN ENTRY. THUS, IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT, EVEN IF A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY COULD EXIST IN REGARD TO A DORMITORY ROOM, THE RIGHT IS WAIVED WHEN THE STUDENT CONSENTS TO DORMITORY REGULATIONS WHICH ALLOW UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO INSPECT AT WILL. THE ACTIONS OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS CONSTITUTE STATE ACTION, BUT THE IN LOCO PARENTIS THEORY CONTENDS THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC FORM OF STATE ACTION -- THE POLICE FUNCTION OF COLLECTING EVIDENCE TO BE USED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IT IS SOMETIMES ARGUED THAT, SINCE THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT SERVING A POLICE FUNCTION, THE STUDENT HAS NO NEED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE POSSIBLE UNIVERSITY SANCTIONS ARE MUCH LESS SEVERE THEN THOSE FACING CRIMINAL DEGENDANTS. ALSO, IT IS CONTENDED HAT THE CONCENTRATION OF YOUTHS WITHIN A CAMPUS SETTING TENDS TO CREATE A DYNAMIC SITUATION LIKELY TO PRODUCE CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND THAT UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS MUST BE EXTENDED REASONABLE AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION, EVEN IF THAT AUTHORITY INFRINGES ON 'MINOR' INTERESTS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE FOUTH AMENDMENT DOES PROTECT A STUDENT'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN A DORMITORY ROOM, THEN UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS MUST CONFORM TO THE SAME SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEDURES IMPOSED ON THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY-AT-LARGE. THE RECOGNIZED SITUATIONS WHERE A WARRANTLESS SEARCH IS PERMITTED AND THE STANDARD OF PROBABLY CAUSE ARE EXAMINED. THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS ALSO EXAMINED. COURT DECISIONS ARE CITED, AND THE PROS AND CONS OF THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ARE DISCUSSED. (KBL)