No it isn’t rocket science

Let me see if I have this straight… law enforcement (campus police) needs to have access to Dormitory hallways which generally are within the public domain or semi-public, to protect students from possible violence. If the illegality involves drugs, booze, burglary, theft, fraud, students endangering themselves or others or any of the non violent “acceptable” crimes the police must check their hats at the front door. Makes sense! Sounds like the dorms are very secure? The officer in question should have represented himself correctly from the beginning and should have read the suspect his Miranda rights upon arrest. That is the impropriety. Dormitories aren’t sovereign nations and are subject to the laws of the land. A warrant may have been appropriate for the dorm room door, but the hallways? The courts need to keep their eyes on the ball. STUDENT THIEF — 1 LAW ABIDING STUDENTS — 0

Bill, at 11:40 am EDT on July 10, 2008

response to Bill and Brian

Bill, From your comment it does not seem like you read the opinion, nor any of the opinions that it is based upon. This is very disturbing because, as an academic, you probably need to read the things you comment upon.

Secondly, there is no “semi-public” in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence (there are similar-sounding concepts in First Amendment jurisprudence.) Either one has an expectation of privacy (within the meaning of the Fourth) in an area or one does not.

The law on this, as recited by the 3d Appellate Division is pretty clear: —BEGIN QUOTE– � 17 An individual has a privacy interest in the interior of his or her home. E.g., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); State v. Ferrier, 136 Wash.2d 103, 960 P.2d 927 (1998). This privacy interest extends to other types of residences, even temporary ones. E.g., Stoner, 376 U.S. at 490, 84 S.Ct. 889 (hotel rooms); State v. Davis, 86 Wash.App. 414, 419, 937 P.2d 1110 (1997) (motel rooms); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948) (room in a boarding house). And it applies to university students’ dormitory rooms. Houck v. Univ. of Wash., 60 Wash.App. 189, 199, 803 P.2d 47 (1991) (applying Wash. Const. art. I, � 7); Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284, 289 (5th Cir.1971) (“a student who occupies a college dormitory room enjoys the protection of the Fourth Amendment”); see also Anobile v. Pelligrino, 303 F.3d 107, 120-21 (2d Cir.2001) (administrative search for drugs in horse race employees’ dormitories located on the racetrack was unconstitutional).

*4 � 18 In assessing Mr. Houvener’s privacy interest in his living group hallway, the focus is whether, under the circumstances, the hallway should be placed under the home’s “ ‘umbrella’ of Fourth Amendment protection.” United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987) (addressing curtilage). The curtilage has been considered “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984).—END QUOTE—-

Now Bill, tell me how, based on the facts found by the lower court, the Court of Appeals misapplied the law.

Secondly, Bill, it turns out that police do not have carte blanche to search for evidence of some crimes where the evidence is necessarily hidden. Indeed, most of the time warrants are required to detect fraud. (And they are easily obtained.) While I am sure that you would never have anything to do with people that drink below legal age (as they are a threat to the country), even underage drinkers (in private) are not subject to random searches from the police.

Third, in the US, everyone is considered to be “law abiding” unless there is a specific reason to conclude that they are not. Even threshold determinations of probable cause sometimes (but not always) need to be approved by a judge. In this case, the cop went out of control. I realize it might be different in less freedom-loving countries such as your own, but we fought a war because we were angry about such searches.

Finally, there are exceptions (as opposed to exclusions) to the “Warrant requirement.” These would include exigent circumstances.

Brian, As the article admits, this problem will probably solve themselves. “Mass communal” dorms are a thing of the past. Students generally have private rooms in small suites, and unless people are going to argue that the suite (with bathroom shared between 4 or so students) is “public” then we easily know where the reasonable expectations of privacy are.

Larry, at 1:10 pm EDT on July 10, 2008

Keep your eye on the ball

Larry, you’re preaching to the choir. There is little doubt that officer Khurt bungled the investigation and subsequent arrest of Mr. Houvener. A warrant for the arrest and to enter the dorm room certainly was in order. The article is about the court deciding to extent the 4th amendment ‘unlawful search and seizure’ to the hallways. The Appellate Court decided Officer Khurt was not authorized to be in the hallways in question. Normally dorm building hallways are restricted public (residents, guests, authorized persons) through-fares. I can only assume Officer Khurt was dispatched to investigate a burglary on the 12th or 13th floor as the article states. He treated the building hallways as within the public domain and subsequently without warrant ordered Mr. Houvener to open his dorm room door after first trying trickery. What is disturbing is that poor investigative and unlawful arrest procedure was used. What is disturbing is that the officer then treated the whole dorm building as public. It appears there were multiple procedural screw-ups in this case. What is ironic and really disturbing is Mr. Houvener has every right to room in the dorms and to sue WSU because he is considered a “law abiding” citizen because of poor police procedure. I can and do agree that 4th amendment rights apply at each individual’s dorm room door. Banning police from access to dorm room hallways as it may be infringe upon ones rights to unlawful search and seizure as dissenting Judge Stephan Brown asserted, is stretching fourth amendment protections beyond reasonability. Remember these are opinionsThe legislature should tackle this problem and lay out clear mandates and procedures so Judges don’t need to issue opinions to be applied as laws and the rest of us don’t have to play jail house lawyers. Enough said...

Bill, at 4:35 pm EDT on July 10, 2008

Me and 1,800 of my closest friends lived in a dorm. We didn’t spend a lot of time snapping towels on each others bare butts in the hallway.

Does this mean that hallways can’t be patroled at night for security purposes? There are some real bad guys out there. Are they getting a free ride?

Dennis Ruhl, at 5:50 pm EDT on July 10, 2008

I see this decision as very limited based its facts. There are multiple facts that, if different, could lead to a different outcome by another court. Just a couple of examples-

1) The incident involved a campus POLICE officer, and not a public safety officer. Fourth Amendment rights are tied to state action- the efforts of those of us who are state/gov’t employees. Private, public safety officers/security should look to their student handbook for the authority to access common residential areas. Student handbooks are viewed as contracts between the University and students and, generally, they set the standards for private actors. Review of your handbook, housing contract, or the use of public safety vs. police could present facts that lead to a different outcome.

A second example:

2) Consent to search within the building was not argued by the State at the trial level of this matter, and thus couldn’t be considered on appeal. Whether or not the student who was robbed had access to the other floors such that he could have consented to a search of the shared hallways is unclear in the opinion. Isolating floors within the residence hall is not the practice of every college. Also, the university later changed its student handbook to clearly authorize access to the common residence hall floors for more university staff personnel. The court didn’t comment on how it may or may not change its analysis of the matter based on the new terms of the handbook.

These are just two facts that, if different on another campus, could lead to a different outcome. I would encourage residence life and public safety/police staff to consult with counsel to see how they can best balance student privacy with the need to investigate crimes against student/property.

Marie, at 9:20 pm EDT on July 10, 2008