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

Although these cases would suggest a tendency to grant students living in university housing a privacy right equal to that of private citizens living in their own homes, some courts have chosen not to follow this tendency. In 1968, the court in Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University ruled that

if [a] regulation-or, in the absence of a regulation, the action of the college authorities-is necessary in aid of the basic responsibility of the institution regarding discipline and the maintenance of an "educational atmosphere," then it will be presumed facially reasonable despite the fact that it may infringe to some extent on the outer bounds of the Fourth Amendment rights of students. (p. 729)

As shown earlier, however, the notion that administrative searches of residence hall rooms will be presumed facially reasonable despite apparent Fourth Amendment violations has largely been rejected. As one court expressed, "the Fourth Amendment is flexible enough to meet a variety of public needs, but it will not admit of slight infringements" (Smyth, 1975, p. 789).

In Furtherance of the Educational Mission Although the courts have strenuously asserted that residents of university-owned housing units enjoy significant rights of privacy, they have not completely stripped the institutions of their control over these areas. Whether the final verdict was issued in favor of the student or the institution, the majority view seems to indicate that as long as searches are conducted in furtherance of the educational mission of the institution, they will be considered legitimate. The Morale (1976) court held that

a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless [the university] can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution.... Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's interest in the maintenance of its plant and the health of its students, as are searches in emergencies, such as in the case of fire. (emphasis added, p. 998)

In the Smyth (1975) case, the court ruled that the searches were "focused upon the room of a specific individual who was suspected of criminal activity, and [were] aimed at discovering specific evidence" and were therefore illegal (Smyth, p. 786). The court differentiated those types of searches from "administrative" searches, defined by that court as "generalized or routine inspection[s] for violations of housing, health, or other regulatory code[s]" (Smyth, p. 786). This issue of whether administrative searches conducted in furtherance of the educational mission would be considered reasonable was raised again in State v. Kappes (1976), and the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that

the university has an obligation to provide a safe and studious environment for those in attendance. It must be solicitous of the health, welfare and safety of its students, many of whom are experiencing life away from home for the first time. It is entirely appropriate that it routinely inspect its dormitory rooms for orderliness and safety, and its authority to do so does not compromise a student's right to protection of the fourth amendment. (p. 124)