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

Staff members at private institutions are not held to Fourth Amendment standards of search and seizure to the same extent as staff members at public institutions. Courts have held that at private institutions, law enforcement personnel must be aware of and assist with the search before Fourth Amendment consideration will attach.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, students residing in university-owned housing are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy and protection against governmental intervention. Colleges and universities, on the other hand, are allowed to conduct inspections which will further the educational mission of the institution. Provisions included in a university housing contract can be considered sufficient notification of the university's right to inspection and can constitute a waiver of the privacy right. Inasmuch as college and university officials are responsible for maintaining an educational atmosphere, they have been allowed to conduct their searches under a more relaxed standard of due process than that applied to governmental agents.

REFERENCES

Banning, J. H., & Kaiser, L. (1974). An ecological perspective and model for campus design. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52, 371-375.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Havighurst, R. J. (1981). The life cycle. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 16-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 272 A.2d 271 (PA Super. 1970).

Commonwealth v. Neilson, 666 N.E2d 984 (MA 1996).

Duarte v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 41 (VA App. 1991).

Hurst, J. C. (1987). Student development and campus ecology: A rapprochement. NASPA Journal, 25, 5-17.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University, 284 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. AL 1968).

Morale v. Grigel, 422 F. Supp. 988 (D. NH 1976).

People v. Boettner, 362 N.Y.S.2d 365 (1974)

Piazzola v. Watkins, 316 F. Supp. 624 (M.D. AL 1970).

Schroeder, C. C., & Jackson, G. S. (1987). Creating conditions for student development in campus living environments. NASPA Journal, 25, 45-53.

Smith v. Maryland, 422 U.S. 735 (1978).

Smyth v. Lubbers, 398 F. Supp. 777 (W.D. MI 1975).

State v. Burroughs, 926 S.W.2d 243 (TN 1996).

State v. Hunter, 831 P.2d 1033 (UT App. 1992).

State v. Kappes, 550 P.2d 121 (AZ App. 1976).

United States v. Abreu, 935 F.2d 1130 (lOth Cir. 1991).

United States v. Osunegbu, 822 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1987).

United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788 (1981).

Valente, W. D. (1985). Education law: Public and private (Vol. 2). St. Paul, MN: West.

Bradley W. Parrish is Residence Director at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Marcia M. Dickman is Associate Professor and Assistant to the Vice President for Student Affairs at Oklahoma State University. Michael Scott Fern is Assistant Legal Counsel at Oklahoma State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bradley W. Parrish, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 513 N. 17th Street, Lincoln, NE 68588-0628; bparrish@unlinfo.unl.edu