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

Recent cases have also supported the right of the institution to conduct searches in furtherance of an educational mission. In State v. Hunter ( 1992), a search conducted in response to several incidents of damage and vandalism in a particular residence hall (which were suspected to be a result of violations of the alcohol and explosives prohibitions) led to the discovery of stolen university property, which was in plain view in Hunter's room, and those items were confiscated. The court ruled in favor of the university, concluding that

[the] search was a reasonable exercise of the university's authority to maintain an educational environment . . . [further,] in a dormitory situation, it is the university that accepts the responsibility of providing this atmosphere. Thus, it is incumbent upon the university to take whatever reasonable measures are necessary to provide a clean, safe, well-disciplined environment in its dormitories. (p. 1036)

Even more recently, a Massachusetts court ruled on this issue in Commonwealth v. Neilson (1996). In that case, college officials conducted a search for a cat believed to be present in a residence hall room (which was a violation of university policy) but discovered marijuana instead. When college officials notified the campus police department of their findings, the police searched the room without a warrant and seized the marijuana. The court held that the search conducted by college officials for the cat was "intended to enforce a legitimate health and safety rule that related to the college's function as an educational institution" (p. 987) and was, therefore, believed to be a reasonable search. However, the subsequent search by campus police officers conducted without a warrant was declared illegal because "the [defendant's] consent [was] given, not to police officials, but to the University and the latter cannot fragmentize, share or delegate it" (p. 987).

Contractual Relationship

Another way that colleges and universities have attempted to legitimize searches is on a contractual basis, accomplished by the inclusion of a room inspection clause in the housing contract. The Moore (1968) case is useful in illustrating this aspect of search and seizure case law. In that case, the university defended its actions by relying heavily on a regulation in force at the time of the search which stated that

the college reserves the right to enter rooms for inspection purposes. If the administration deems it necessary the room may be searched and the occupant required to open his personal baggage and any other personal material which is seized. (p. 728)

The court accepted this argument, ruling that

[a] student who lives in a dormitory on campus which he "rents" from the school waives objection to any reasonable searches conducted pursuant to reasonable and necessary regulations such as this one. (p. 731)

Since the Moore ruling was issued, several colleges and universities have adopted similar stances in support of their actions and have achieved similar results. The Morale decision suggests that "health and safety inspections" provided for in a housing contract "would probably be reasonable" if these searches were shown to "entail a minimal intrusion . . . [and] further a legitimate interest" (Morale, p. 999). More recently, the Neilson (1996) court decided that the student involved in that search had "consented to reasonable searches to enforce the college's health and safety regulations when he signed the residence contract" (p. 987).