Search and Seizure Considerations in University-Owned Housing: Implications for Practice

Journal of College Student Development, May/Jun 1998 by Parrish, Bradley W, Dickman, Marcia M, Fern, Michael Scott

As a general principle, the courts have found that the right of privacy for students who live in university-owned housing units is similar, if not identical, to the right of privacy enjoyed by people who live in private housing units. In Commonwealth v. McCloskey (1970), a search of McCloskey's room was conducted by two police officers and two university staff members. Without identifying themselves as law enforcement officers or university officials, these individuals unlocked and entered McCloskey's room, presented him with a search warrant, and proceeded to search his room for drugs. The search yielded a quantity of marijuana, and McCloskey was arrested (McCloskey, p. 272). In his appeal, McCloskey stated that the entry into his room was improper under the Fourth Amendment, because the police officers did not identify themselves as such before entering his room. The Commonwealth argued that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to searches of residence hall rooms. The court ruled in favor of McCloskey, stating that "a dormitory room is analogous to an apartment or a hotel room" (McCloskey, p. 273). Although the university retained some right of inspection, McCloskey was still entitled "to have a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion" (McCloskey, p. 273).

Other cases have articulated the privacy right in even stronger language. In Smyth v. Lubbers (1975), two residence hall rooms were searched by campus police officers, who were also deputy sheriffs of that particular county, and university staff members. Both searches were conducted without a warrant and without the consent of the residents. In both searches, evidence seized was later identified as marijuana (Smyth, pp. 782-783). Plaintiffs challenged the legality of the searches on Fourth Amendment grounds. In its ruling in favor of the students, the court held that a student's "dormitory room is his house and home for all practical purposes, and he has the same interest in the privacy of his room as any adult has in the privacy of his home, dwelling, or lodging" (Smyth, p. 786). In Morale u Grigel (1976), similar issues were raised. Two residential life staff members were involved in conducting room searches for a stolen stereo. If the occupants of the room were present, the staff members sought permission before conducting the search. If no one was present, staff members gained entry with a passkey and searched the room anyway. In the course of conducting these searches, the stolen stereo was never found, but some marijuana was discovered in Morale's room. Like the defendants in the Smyth (1975) case, Morale challenged the legality of the searches on Fourth Amendment grounds. In language similar to that found in Smyth, the court ruled in favor of Morale, stating that "a dormitory room is a student's home away from home, and any student may reasonably expect that once the door is closed to the outside, his or her solitude and secrecy will not be disturbed by a governmental intrusion without at least permission, if not invitation" (Morale, p. 997).