Commentary

Priyal Morjaria

Higher Education Law

4/5/2015
Is a college student living in a dormitory protected against search and seizure by the Fourth
Amendment?
The one place where most individuals feel that their privacy is intact is within the walls
of the place they call their home. For college students this is often their dorm rooms which they
see as their home while in school. They eat, sleep, study, relax and even socialize in the four
walls of their dormitory rooms; however many students are not aware of their right to privacy
when it comes to their dorm space, cars or even the items they may carry around campus.
College students have the same constitutional rights as others however they also have contractual
agreements with the institution they are attending. In this commentary I will take a closure look
at the fourth amendment rights of college students, how search and seizure laws differ for college
students, and both reasonable and unreasonable search and seizure cases at higher education
institutions.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individuals right to
be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects. The Fourth Amendment also protects us
against unreasonable search and seizure. An individuals right to privacy cannot be violated and
a warrant cannot be issued against them unless there is a present probable cause or they give
permission to allow the search or seizure. Any search and seizure that is conducted without a
warrant or is unreasonable can be considered invalid in court. Police offers can seize illegal items
that they find in plain view and are not kept hidden from public sight. Even the Plain View
Doctrine has some protections. An officers first entry into a persons house has to be legal even
if an item is in plain view. Probable cause must exist to seize the item (Alexander & Alexander,
2011, p. 301-307).

Commentary

Priyal Morjaria

In the realm of higher education search and seizure laws may differ based on the type of
housing a student utilizes. A higher education institution has the right to enter a students dorm
room to make sure that there is nothing harmful to that specific students or other students
health and wellbeing. This search cannot be performed for any purpose other than to evaluate the
space for the health and safety of students. University officials cannot search the room to
specifically discover something illegal that can be used against the student in court. If an
institution finds something illegal in a students dorm room while they are in the room legally for
another purpose than they must contact the local police to conduct a legal search. With a search
warrant and probable cause law enforcement may than start a legal investigation of the premises
(Alexander & Alexander, 2011, p. 307-310). There have been several cases over the years where
college students have either benefitted from Fourth Amendment rights or have faced the
consequences of court upheld search and seizure.
In the 1971 case of Piazzola vs. Watkins Troy State University officials along with
narcotics officers were informed by other students the names of a handful of students that had
marijuana in their dorm rooms. The university officials along with police officers searched the
dorm rooms of a few students over a long weekend when students were not present in their
rooms. The police officers did not have a search warrant and they were not given permission by
the students to search their rooms. During the search police officers found marijuana in the dorm
rooms of Piazzola and Marinshaw. Piazzolas room was searched twice. During the first search
nothing was found. During the second search only police officers were present and they found
narcotics. Both students were arrested and sentenced to five years in jail. The University
provided that they have the right to search a students dorm room for inspection purposes. Once
imprisoned both individuals petitioned for habeas corpus. The court found the search and seizure

Commentary

Priyal Morjaria

of a students dorm room unreasonable because a warrant to search the students premises was
not present and the student did not give consent to search. Even though a University housing
contract stated that university officials have the right to inspect dormitory rooms, students are not
forgoing their constitutional rights (Piazzola v. Watkins, 1971).
Another similar case of Smyth v Lubbers had a similar outcome where judicial
proceedings held a search and seizure in a college dormitory as unconstitutional. In 1974 two
college students from Grand Valley College in Michigan had their dorm rooms searched by
university officials and police officers. They were not provided with a search warrant nor did
they consent to the search. Narcotics were found in their rooms and both students were
suspended. In 1975 the District Court of Michigan found the search and seizure unreasonable
because there was no presence of a search warrant, reasonable doubt or consent to search. The
students who were searched where not provided with due process (Smyth v. Lubbers, 1975).
In the Supreme Court case of Washington v. Chrisman a Washington State University
police officer saw a student, Carl Overdahl, walk out of his dormitory with a bottle of gin. The
officer saw that the student may be under age, approached the student and requested
identification. The student stated that his ID was in his dorm room and that he would go get it.
The officer stated that he would follow the student to his dorm room. As the officer stood outside
of the students dorm room he saw the students roommate, Chrisman, behave suspiciously. The
officer also saw in plain view what looked like marijuana seeds and a pipe. The officer than
entered the dorm room to take a closure look. Once his doubts were affirmed he informed
Chrisman and OVerdahl of their Miranda Rights. Both students stated that they understood him
and that they willfully waived their rights. The students than handed the officer more drugs after
he asked them. The officer called for another officer and they informed the student that they

Commentary

Priyal Morjaria

would need to search the room. The officers also told both students that they could legally ask
for a warrant or they could provide the officers with permission to search. Overdahl and
Chrisman both consented and even signed off on written affidavit allowing consent. On
searching the premises the officers found more marijuana and LSD. Both students were charged
for drug possession. The Washington Supreme Court found the search and seizure to be invalid
and the case was taken to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States
reversed the previous verdict and was in favor of Washington. The Supreme Court found nothing
unconstitutional in the officers desire to walk the student to his dorm room and also held that the
officer only entered the premises once he viewed what he found to be illegal substances in plain
view. The officer had probable cause. The US Supreme court found this search and seizure to
be reasonable.
With several different verdicts in various cases for and against on campus search and
seizures it is apparent that the constitutionality of the search and seizure is always questioned.
Even though college students have contractual agreements with Universities that allow
universities to enter dorm rooms without consent a students constitutional rights are protected.
A search and seizure without probable cause, a search warrant or student consent is not
considered constitutionally valid by many courts; however that does not mean that when
probable cause is apparent a student is free from abiding by law enforcement procedures and
judicial regulations. The US Constitution protects an individuals rights and also holds them
responsible when they break laws.

Commentary

Priyal Morjaria

References
Alexander, K.W. & Alexander, K. (2011). Higher education law: policy and perspectives.
New York, NY. Rutledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284 (5th Cir.1971). <https://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=2499352637516673313&q=Piazzola+v.+Watkins+(1971)&hl=en&as
_sdt=80006&as_vis=1>
Smyth v. Lubbers, 398 F. Supp. 777 (W.D. Mich. 1975). < https://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=18030045190392724735&q=Smyth+v.+Lubbers+(1975)&hl=en&as_
sdt=80006&as_vis=1