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 the cases that involve Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues have varied in their outcomes, some trends in decisions are discernible in the case law. Table 1 is a visual comparison of the case law to date as related to public and private institutions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As the case law evolves in search and seizure issues, some generalizations can be made in regard to the practice of student affairs. Practitioners may use these generalizations to assist in the determination of policy and to provide guidelines for professional conduct. The following considerations may be useful in planning policies and interventions:

1. Searches are, in general, permissible to avoid health hazards and to respond to emergencies. Almost without exception the courts support entering a student's room to provide routine maintenance functions and to ensure a clean and safe environment.

2. Privacy has become increasingly important to today's college students. Students come to the institution with expectations that their right to privacy will be similar to those which they experienced at home. They may have had not only their own rooms but their own bathrooms at home. The concept of privacy is very important to these students and any violation of their rights will not be ignored. As residence hall living units look more like private apartments, so the expectation of privacy increases. Privacy rights for students are similar, if not identical, to rights of privacy for people in private housing units, as court decisions reflect.

3. Although search warrants and policies can make a student's room accessible to a university or governmental representative, the simplest means of gaining entry is by permission. If possible, such representatives should always gain students' permission to enter their rooms.

4. Individuals functioning in an official capacity should always identify themselves as such before entering a student's room. The courts have viewed a lack of identification as an indication of governmental intrusion. Even with other appropriate procedures, the lack of identification can jeopardize the whole search process.

5. The critical standard to be met in most cases where an institution is involved in privacy issues is whether searches are conducted in furtherance of the educational mission. Institutions have been granted some latitude when a relationship between the search activity and an educational objective can be demonstrated. This would support the advisability of institutions' incorporating developmental objectives in the planning of policies and interventions.

6. The distinction between the responsibility of police officials and university officials is clear. Police officials are held to a more stringent standard, and support of searches that relate to the educational mission are reserved for University officials. If illegal activity has been discovered while conducting routine educational business, courts have found in favor of the institutions.

7. Currently, courts tend to interpret the contractual relationship between institutions and students as a waiver of students' Fourth Amendment rights. This allows institutions to include clauses in their housing contracts that supersede the individual's right to privacy.