# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 1: Professional Perspective

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 1: Professional Perspective

# data[].attributes.body
The legal guide is taken from the perspective of a post-secondary education student affairs administrator to help my colleagues in student affairs recognize their legal responsibility when conducting searches in the residence halls. I am currently a financial aid administrator in the division of Student Access and Success at the University of North Texas at Dallas; I am pursuing a master’s degree in Higher Education to strengthen and develop my current education and knowledge in the field. I selected this topic, because 2019-2020 will mark the three year anniversary of our residence halls and I wanted to evaluate the law and best practices as it relates to the law regarding search and seizure of residence halls and compare it to our university policies and best practices.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 6: Fourth Amendment-Constitutional Law (U.S. const. amend. IV)

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 6: Fourth Amendment-Constitutional Law (U.S. const. amend. IV)

# data[].attributes.body
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause (U.S. const. amend. IV).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitution of the United States - We the People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A highly accessible, easy to use online version of the U. S. Constitution with the full text including the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments includes both sequential and subject indexes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 7: Texas Constitution Bill of Rights-Constitutional Law (Tex. Const. art. 1 § 9)

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 7: Texas Constitution Bill of Rights-Constitutional Law (Tex. Const. art. 1 § 9)

# data[].attributes.body
Texas constitution stated the property, person, and possessions of an individual will remain secure from all unreasonable seizures or searches without probable cause (Tex. Const. art. 1 § 9).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION



ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS



That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:


Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.


Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.


Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.


Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.


(Added Nov. 7, 1972.)


Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.


Sec. 5. WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS. No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.


Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.


Sec. 7. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES. No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.


Sec. 8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL. Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.


Sec. 9. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.


Sec. 10. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.


(Amended Nov. 5, 1918.)


Sec. 11. BAIL. All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent bail after indictment found upon examination of the evidence, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.


Sec. 11a. DENIAL OF BAIL AFTER MULTIPLE FELONIES. (a) Any person (1) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, who has been theretofore twice convicted of a felony, the second conviction being subsequent to the first, both in point of time of commission of the offense and conviction therefor, (2) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, committed while on bail for a prior felony for which he has been indicted, (3) accused of a felony less than capital in this State involving the use of a deadly weapon after being convicted of a prior felony, or (4) accused of a violent or sexual offense committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, after a hearing, and upon evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused of the offense in (1) or (3) above, of the offense committed while on bail in (2) above, or of the offense in (4) above committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, may be denied bail pending trial, by a district judge in this State, if said order denying bail pending trial is issued within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of incarceration of the accused; provided, however, that if the accused is not accorded a trial upon the accusation under (1) or (3) above, the accusation and indictment used under (2) above, or the accusation or indictment used under (4) above within sixty (60) days from the time of his incarceration upon the accusation, the order denying bail shall be automatically set aside, unless a continuance is obtained upon the motion or request of the accused; provided, further, that the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of this State is expressly accorded the accused for a review of any judgment or order made hereunder, and said appeal shall be given preference by the Court of Criminal Appeals.


(b) In this section:


(1) "Violent offense" means:


(A) murder;


(B) aggravated assault, if the accused used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault;


(C) aggravated kidnapping; or


(D) aggravated robbery.


(2) "Sexual offense" means:


(A) aggravated sexual assault;


(B) sexual assault; or


(C) indecency with a child.


(Added Nov. 6, 1956; amended Nov. 8, 1977; Subsec. (a) amended and (b) added Nov. 2, 1993.)


Sec. 11b. DENIAL OF BAIL FOR VIOLATION OF CONDITION OF RELEASE. Any person who is accused in this state of a felony or an offense involving family violence, who is released on bail pending trial, and whose bail is subsequently revoked or forfeited for a violation of a condition of release may be denied bail pending trial if a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a preponderance of the evidence at a subsequent hearing that the person violated a condition of release related to the safety of a victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community.


(Added Nov. 8, 2005; amended Nov. 6, 2007.)


Sec. 11c. DENIAL OF BAIL FOR VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER INVOLVING FAMILY VIOLENCE. The legislature by general law may provide that any person who violates an order for emergency protection issued by a judge or magistrate after an arrest for an offense involving family violence or who violates an active protective order rendered by a court in a family violence case, including a temporary ex parte order that has been served on the person, or who engages in conduct that constitutes an offense involving the violation of an order described by this section may be taken into custody and, pending trial or other court proceedings, denied release on bail if following a hearing a judge or magistrate in this state determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person violated the order or engaged in the conduct constituting the offense.


(Added Nov. 6, 2007.)


Sec. 12. HABEAS CORPUS. The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right, and shall never be suspended. The Legislature shall enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual.


Sec. 13. EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; OPEN COURTS; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.


Sec. 14. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty; nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offense after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.


Sec. 15. RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency. Provided, that the Legislature may provide for the temporary commitment, for observation and/or treatment, of mentally ill persons not charged with a criminal offense, for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days, by order of the County Court without the necessity of a trial by jury.


(Amended Aug. 24, 1935.)


Sec. 15-a. COMMITMENT OF PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND. No person shall be committed as a person of unsound mind except on competent medical or psychiatric testimony. The Legislature may enact all laws necessary to provide for the trial, adjudication of insanity and commitment of persons of unsound mind and to provide for a method of appeal from judgments rendered in such cases. Such laws may provide for a waiver of trial by jury, in cases where the person under inquiry has not been charged with the commission of a criminal offense, by the concurrence of the person under inquiry, or his next of kin, and an attorney ad litem appointed by a judge of either the County or Probate Court of the county where the trial is being held, and shall provide for a method of service of notice of such trial upon the person under inquiry and of his right to demand a trial by jury.


(Added Nov. 6, 1956.)


Sec. 16. BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS; IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.


Sec. 17. TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES. (a) No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:


(1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:


(A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or


(B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or


(2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.


(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.


(c) On or after January 1, 2010, the legislature may enact a general, local, or special law granting the power of eminent domain to an entity only on a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house.


(d) When a person's property is taken under Subsection (a) of this section, except for the use of the State, compensation as described by Subsection (a) shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money; and no irrevocable or uncontrollable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be made; but all privileges and franchises granted by the Legislature, or created under its authority, shall be subject to the control thereof.


(Amended Nov. 3, 2009.)


Sec. 18. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.


Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC. BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.


Sec. 20. OUTLAWRY OR TRANSPORTATION OUT OF STATE FOR OFFENSE. No citizen shall be outlawed. No person shall be transported out of the State for any offense committed within the same. This section does not prohibit an agreement with another state providing for the confinement of inmates of this State in the penal or correctional facilities of that state.


(Amended Nov. 5, 1985.)


Sec. 21. CORRUPTION OF BLOOD; FORFEITURE OF ESTATE; SUICIDES. No conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate, and the estates of those who destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in case of natural death.


Sec. 22. TREASON AGAINST STATE. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


Sec. 24. MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.


Sec. 25. QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN HOUSES. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in the house of any citizen without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law.


Sec. 26. PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed, nor shall the law of primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.


Sec. 27. RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.


Sec. 28. SUSPENSION OF LAWS. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised except by the Legislature.


Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.


Sec. 30. RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS. (a) A crime victim has the following rights:


(1) the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process; and


(2) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal justice process.


(b) On the request of a crime victim, the crime victim has the following rights:


(1) the right to notification of court proceedings;


(2) the right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim's testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial;


(3) the right to confer with a representative of the prosecutor's office;


(4) the right to restitution; and


(5) the right to information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.


(c) The legislature may enact laws to define the term "victim" and to enforce these and other rights of crime victims.


(d) The state, through its prosecuting attorney, has the right to enforce the rights of crime victims.


(e) The legislature may enact laws to provide that a judge, attorney for the state, peace officer, or law enforcement agency is not liable for a failure or inability to provide a right enumerated in this section. The failure or inability of any person to provide a right or service enumerated in this section may not be used by a defendant in a criminal case as a ground for appeal or post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. A victim or guardian or legal representative of a victim has standing to enforce the rights enumerated in this section but does not have standing to participate as a party in a criminal proceeding or to contest the disposition of any charge.


(Added Nov. 7, 1989.)


Sec. 31. FUNDS FOR COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME. (a) The compensation to victims of crime fund created by general law and the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund created by general law are each a separate dedicated account in the general revenue fund.


(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this section and subject to legislative appropriation, money deposited to the credit of the compensation to victims of crime fund or the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund from any source may be expended as provided by law only for delivering or funding victim-related compensation, services, or assistance.


(c) The legislature may provide by law that money in the compensation to victims of crime fund or in the compensation to victims of crime auxiliary fund may be expended for the purpose of assisting victims of episodes of mass violence if other money appropriated for emergency assistance is depleted.


(Added Nov. 4, 1997.)


Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.


(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)


Sec. 33. PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND USE OF PUBLIC BEACHES. (a) In this section, "public beach" means a state-owned beach bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, extending from mean low tide to the landward boundary of state-owned submerged land, and any larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to which the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over the area by prescription or dedication or has established and retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public under Texas common law.


(b) The public, individually and collectively, has an unrestricted right to use and a right of ingress to and egress from a public beach. The right granted by this subsection is dedicated as a permanent easement in favor of the public.


(c) The legislature may enact laws to protect the right of the public to access and use a public beach and to protect the public beach easement from interference and encroachments.


(d) This section does not create a private right of enforcement.


(Added Nov. 3, 2009.)


Sec. 34. RIGHT TO HUNT, FISH, AND HARVEST WILDLIFE. (a) The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.


(b) Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.


(c) This section does not affect any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or eminent domain.


(d) This section does not affect the power of the legislature to authorize a municipality to regulate the discharge of a weapon in a populated area in the interest of public safety.


(Added Nov. 3, 2015.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 8: Texas Constitution-Constitutional Law (Tex. Const. art. 37 § 37.006)

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 8: Texas Constitution-Constitutional Law (Tex. Const. art. 37 § 37.006)

# data[].attributes.body
The article of the Texas constitution allows the possible removal of any student if the student engages in conduct involving the selling, giving, delivery, possession or usage of marijuana or other controlled substance, as well as the prohibition of the selling, giving, or delivery of any alcoholic beverages (Tex. Const. art. 37 § 37.006). This removal extends to individuals committed of a serious act or offense while found under the influence (Tex. Const. art. 37 § 37.006).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EDUCATION CODE CHAPTER 37. DISCIPLINE; LAW AND ORDER

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(d) The campus behavior coordinator shall promptly notify a student's parent or guardian as provided by this subsection if under this subchapter the student is placed into in-school or out-of-school suspension, placed in a disciplinary alternative education program, expelled, or placed in a juvenile justice alternative education program or is taken into custody by a law enforcement officer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 9: Piazzola v. Watkins-Judicial Law (Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284, 1971) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 9: Piazzola v. Watkins-Judicial Law (Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284, 1971) 

# data[].attributes.body
In the case of Piazzola v. Watkins, the Dean of Men at Troy State University was informed by city police that they had sufficient evidence that marijuana was present in the dorm rooms of specific students. The police requested the cooperation of university officials in searching the rooms, and University officials allowed police to search the dorm rooms without a warrant or the consent of the students named (Piazzola v. Watkins, 1971).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Transformed by Public.Resource.Org, Inc., at Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:20:02 GMT

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 12: Non-Law Source

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 12: Non-Law Source

# data[].attributes.body
A website that may prove helpful for my colleagues in student affairs is Justia US Law. The website provides free access to the law in a central location by offering uncomplicated accounts of federal and state court decisions, codes, and regulations. Justia explains how the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials because school officials act as representatives’ of the government. However, the courts ruled adhering to less stringent guidelines provided by the Fourth Amendment of having a warrant or probable cause is appropriate for the educational setting, because simple reasonableness governs all searches related to students by school officials.

Justia U. S. Law. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/22-public-schools.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Annotations
Public Schools.-In New Jersey v. T. L. O., the Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school authorities. The Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials because "school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents." However, "the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject." Neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause standard is appropriate, the Court ruled. Instead, a simple reasonableness standard governs all searches of students' persons and effects by school authorities. A search must be reasonable at its inception, i. e., there must be "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school." School searches must also be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the interference, and "not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." In applying these rules, the Court upheld as reasonable the search of a student's purse to determine whether the student, accused of violating a school rule by smoking in the lavatory, possessed cigarettes. The search for cigarettes uncovered evidence of drug activity held admissible in a prosecution under the juvenile laws.

In Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, a student found in possession of prescription ibuprofen pills at school stated that the pills had come from another student, 13-year-old Savana Redding. The Court found that the first student's statement was sufficiently plausible to warrant suspicion that Savana was involved in pill distribution, and that this suspicion was enough to justify a search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing. School officials, however, had also "directed Savana to remove her clothes down to her underwear, and then 'pull out' her bra and the elastic band on her underpants" -an action that the Court thought could fairly be labeled a strip search. Taking into account that "adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure" and that, according to a study, a strip search can "result in serious emotional damage," the Court found that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. "Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear," the Court wrote, "the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion." But, even though the Court found that the search had violated the Fourth Amendment, it found that the school officials who conducted the search were protected from liability through qualified immunity, because the law prior to Redding was not clearly established.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

# data[].attributes.body
I interviewed Dr. Jamaica Chapple, LPC, Associate Vice President of Student Access & Success and Dean of Students for the University of North Texas at Dallas.

Why is Search and Seizure of Residence Halls important in the area of Student Affairs?

According to Dr. Chapple, searching the living area of students suspected of possessing illegal contraband, and confiscating when necessary, is important to keep students and staff safe in the residence hall, as well as the entire university community. Dr. Chapple explained how students living in the residence hall feel a sense of freedom and privacy when living on campus, but often overlook the realization they are still on university property. She mentions how although the space in the residence hall is their home away from home, it is the responsibility of the university to make sure no one is jeopardizing the health and/or safety of the university community.

Best Practices when conducting Residence Hall Searches and Possible Seizures:

Providing adequate and continuous training to full-time/part-time staff, resident assistants (RAs), and student assistants of the residence hall on how to perform searches according to university policy.

Establishing an initial sense of community and comradery within the residence hall, so residents will adopt the residence hall’s mantra of “See something, say something.”

Establishing a strong relationship with campus police, so each area can provide the support required to keep the university community safe according to university policy, as well as the law.

Emerging issue related to conducting searches in residence halls:

Based on the conversation with Dr. Chapple, I determined an emerging concern for our university’s campus may be maintaining students’ level of trust of their peers and/or RAs. Although the campus has had few incidences since the residence hall has opened, Dr. Chapple confirmed residents reported for possessing illegal contraband were reported by other students. Living in such a close confined space requires a certain level of trust among peers, and if students start to feel they are unable to trust one another they may feel hesitant to confide in one another if a serious situation ever emerges, such as feelings of depression, anxiety, academic inferiority, suicidal ideations, abuse, etc. To confide in a peer for help and/or guidance with such sensitive issues aforementioned requires a certain level of trust, which may be in jeopardy if they feel the trust will be violated.

(J. Chapple, personal communication, July 19, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Jamaica Chapple proudly joined UNT Dallas in 2013. She currently serves as the Associate Vice President of Student Access and Success and Dean of Students, and oversees the Department of Student Affairs, which includes Campus Activities, Student Organizations, Greek Life, Leadership and Multicultural Programming, Community Standards, Career Services, Counseling and Wellness, Disability Services, Veterans Success, Disability Services, Title IX, Intramurals and Residence Life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 10: Local Policy-University of North Texas at Dallas

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 10: Local Policy-University of North Texas at Dallas

# data[].attributes.body
The policy outlined by the University of North Texas at Dallas acknowledges the privacy of our student residents; however, in order to protect and maintain the health and safety of the university community, university officials reserve the right to enter and search student rooms, with or without the consent of the student resident, if the official has reasonable suspicion the premises are being used for a purpose violating university policy.

University of North Texas at Dallas Policy Manual (2017). Inspection and Administrative Search of Residence Halls Retrieved from https://president.untdallas.edu/sites/default/files/7.026_inspection_and_administrative_search_of_residence_halls.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses a lawsuit filed by a former University of Iowa (UI) police officer after being fired for an illegal search of a dorm room. According to the article, UI’s policy prohibits UI police from searching through students’ possessions without obtaining a warrant; however, the officer began opening drawers of a student before contacting a judge. The university responded to the lawsuit by replying how the results of the initial review of information determined the officer violated UI's policy by searching the room without a warrant; the officer accused of violating the policy proclaims UI’s policy is vague. The article confirms the importance of universities to establish clear, well-defined policies as it relates to searching a student’s room and/or possessions. It also corroborates the importance of continuous and frequent training of university officials regarding university policies involving searches and seizures of student residents living in residence halls. Universities are unable to afford the risk and legal liability of employing university officials who will act out of accordance with outlined policies and established law.

Breaux, A. (2019, January 09). Lawsuit turns up evidence of an illegal search of University of Iowa dorm rooms. Iowa City Press-Citizen. Retrieved from https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/education/university-of-iowa/2019/01/09/lawsuit-turns-up-evidence-illegal-search-ui-dorm-rooms/2524205002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

It's policy for University of Iowa Police to not rifle through student's belongings without a warrant, but during a search of Catlett Hall last April an officer began opening drawers before contacting a judge.

Not long after, Officer Jeffrey Williams found a handful of bags filled with marijuana.

"OH! Man, too bad," reads a transcript from the officer's body cam. "We could just close the door, sit in here and say, Surprise!"

Instead, the officer changed course. With the body cam rolling, Williams began writing out a note.

"This is kind of my inappropriate side we're talking about," he can be heard quipping to an unnamed female in the room. "I'm going to write on my business care (sic) 'I took your weed' and leave it where the weed is."

The incident led the UI to fire the officer last May, according to documents recently made public as part of a lawsuit.

Williams sued UIPD leadership shortly after the firing, accusing the police captain and director of public safety of violating Iowa's Veteran's Preference statute by terminating his employment just days before he was scheduled for a deployment to the Middle East along with his unit of the Air National Guard.

In a court filing, Williams' lawyers argue that their client was not provided with due notice of termination, a full hearing or any statement of the charges or facts supporting his termination.

Recent filings in response to the lawsuit show that Police Captain Mark Bullock put Williams on paid personal leave and notified the officer of the investigation on April 19, five days after the search. In the letter, Bullock wrote that based on an initial review of the information, Williams broke UI policy by searching the room without a warrant.

"Because case law regarding search and seizure is constantly changing and open to interpretation by the courts, each member of this department is expected to act in each situation according to current training and his/her familiarity with clearly established rights as determined by case law," reads the UI Department of Public Safety Policy Manual.

During the search, Williams is recorded saying "I'm going to open some drawers...I can't charge anybody."

In the hearing that accompanied the UI investigation into Williams, the officer said the investigation was the most devastating moment of his life and argued that he was motivated to search the room out of concern for students.

"I stand by my actions as a police officer and truly thought I was looking out for the well-being of thousands of residents of Catlett Hall that night," he said. "I must remind you that there is no victim from this incident. I am only accused of violating a vague policy."

Department of Public Safety Director Scott Beckner is also facing another lawsuit by former employees. Three former ICPD managers, all in their 50s, accuse the department of ageism after their positions were eliminated in a department restructuring.

Read or Share this story: https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/education/university-of-iowa/2019/01/09/lawsuit-turns-up-evidence-illegal-search-ui-dorm-rooms/2524205002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawsuit turns up evidence of an illegal search of University of Iowa dorm rooms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE It's policy for University of Iowa Police to not rifle through student's belongings without a warrant, but during a search of Catlett Hall last April an officer began opening drawers before contacting a judge. Not long after, Officer Jeffrey Williams found a handful of bags filled with marijuana. "OH!

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses the legalization of marijuana and how it affects college campuses; it declares how even though some states removed criminal penalties for marijuana possession and/or consumption, for medical use and more infrequently recreational use, it is still prohibited on college campuses. Students at some universities, in states with laws allowing the legal possession of marijuana, began to petition for reduced punishments for possessing marijuana on campus. Colleges fear the government would withdraw federal funding if they decide to allow any type of drugs on campus, even if marijuana is declared legal by the state. The legalization of marijuana may influence how universities write policies related to the possession of marijuana and how it impacts searches of student residents living in resident halls, and any potential seizures. Universities could decide to allow the medical possession of marijuana in residence halls, but there would have to be a policy written to align with the law to account for the exception. If universities decide to allow medical marijuana, they would need to invest in writing adequate policies outlining what is allowed and what would constitute an unlawful possession. Adequate training of staff and resident assistants (RAs) would also be a necessity to ensure everyone is knowledgeable about how searches and potential subsequent seizures would be conducted under the new policies written for the exception.

Bauer-Wolf, J. (2017, December 19). Legal Pot? Doesn’t Matter, Colleges Say. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/12/19/despite-more-open-marijuana-laws-colleges-still-banning-it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While some states have removed criminal penalties for marijuana, and many others have legalized it for medical and -- more rarely -- recreational use, the drug remains forbidden at colleges in such states.

That's because of a hovering federal threat, but one that has never been realized -- that the government could yank funding to institutions that disobey the law banning drugs on college campuses and public schools.

Public opinion on marijuana has shifted in recent years -- a Pew Research Center survey from last year found 57 percent of American adults said it should be legalized, as opposed to a decade ago, when 60 percent opposed it being legal. Cannabis enjoys particular support among traditional college-age students, meaning they're more likely to want to smoke it, vape it or bake it into a brownie -- and they have an easier avenue for doing so with the recent move to legalize.

Last year, California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Maine all voted to legalize marijuana, joining Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, Washington and the District of Columbia. Not all states require residents to be 21 to consume.

"Regardless of marijuana's legal status, colleges should treat marijuana like they treat alcohol in their own internal policies," said Morgan Fox, communications manager of the Marijuana Policy Project. "Marijuana is much safer than alcohol, and so much less trouble."

College administrators appear reluctant to take this step, though, largely out of worry that they would infringe on the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Representatives from the university systems in both Maine and California cited the 1989 law as the reason policy hasn't changed.

Many institutions treat alcohol violations far less seriously than possession of drugs including marijuana, a "slap on the wrist" versus potential expulsion, Fox said.

At the University of Maryland, College Park, students have lobbied for reduced punishments for possessing marijuana, which they said would reflect the state's status as having made it a civil offense in 2014. Anyone 21 or older can be caught with 10 grams of pot or less and just pay a fine, akin to a speeding ticket. The Maryland General Assembly also decriminalized drug paraphernalia.

Members of the student government at Maryland passed a resolution calling for the university to end random drug testing, housing termination, suspension and expulsion as potential consequences for students over 21 found with weed or drug paraphernalia.

The student who drafted the measure, junior Leah Barteldes, said she's heard that the system for adjudicating marijuana violations is "inconsistent." Her interest in this topic was first piqued because the country's judicial system has disproportionately sent men and women of color to jail for drug offenses, she said.

Barteldes said she has met with administrators who told her they don't always enforce the rules for marijuana as described in policy because they often consider it a lesser offense. Barteldes said she'd rather new procedures be created to remove any potential for biases. But because of the federal law, the college's leaders fear loosening the policies could jeopardize federal funding, Barteldes said.

(Fox, of the Marijuana Policy Project, said he was unaware of any institution having its funding taken away for running afoul of the law.)

University spokeswoman Katie Lawson said because the proposal is in its early stages, it would not weigh in. She provided a statement from the university health center's director, David McBride, who did not support lifting sanctions.

"Our own School of Public Health has published research that documents the negative academic impact of cannabis use," McBride said in his statement. "In my opinion, this university needs to do what we can from a policy and enforcement perspective to prevent students from using marijuana. Any other approach would contradict our mission to educate students. Other harms associated with the use of marijuana include the development of psychiatric disorders and increased likelihood of other drug use."

Many reports have challenged whether marijuana does indeed serve as a "gateway" drug. A 1999 National Institute of Medicine study identified alcohol and nicotine as the first substances that adolescents try. It stated that while "logically" those who use marijuana for the high may be more willing to try other drugs, "there is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping-stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect."

Research has also shown that cannabis poses less health risks than alcohol, with not a single documented fatal overdose of the drug, Fox said. It also does not inspire the same sort of violent behavior that alcohol tends to bring out in some abusers, he said.

Sydney Heise, president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy at UMD, said she has witnessed this phenomenon firsthand. The university will often send out mass emails warning students against intoxicated individuals, but marijuana just doesn't result in the same sort of brawls, she said.

Her group has backed the resolution, and she said she believes by and large, the student body approves of it, too.

"This university feels, in some ways, like a symbol for ... hypocrisy," one student, Jack Lewis, wrote in an opinion piece in the student newspaper, The Diamondback. "We are a flagship institution in a state that decriminalized possession of small amounts of the drug and yet fall in line with national laws that categorically ban it."

The college's residence life drug policy, approved in August 1991, warns students that if they possess or sell any illegal drug, they "in all likelihood" would immediately be removed from housing or suspended or expelled from the university. Barteldes in her interview highlighted how old the policy is.

Other university systems have taken similar stances. The University of California, in one of the most liberal states in the country, where recreational cannabis use is legal, explicitly forbids marijuana on any campus, with no intent to change the policy, said spokeswoman Claire Doan.

Maine, despite voters having legalized marijuana in a referendum vote, hasn't set up any structure for the sale of legal marijuana sales because its Republican governor, Paul LePage, vetoed a bill that would do so.

Disregarding this fight, the University of System of Maine still wouldn't alter its policies, according to a memo distributed by the system's general counsel.

Another particularly tough dynamic is the students who might consume marijuana for medicinal purposes -- even with a prescription, colleges generally won't allow it, often forcing them into off-campus living situations.

The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act does also not distinguish between medical and nonmedical weed, though advocates have made some minor legal headway on this front.

A court of appeals in Arizona earlier this year overturned a state law criminalizing medical marijuana on college campuses. In 2010, the state legalized medical cannabis but set out certain areas where it wasn't allowed, such as public schools, school buses and correctional facilities. Though the judge in the case ruled against lawmakers, he did note that nothing bars colleges from setting their own rules on when marijuana was allowed on the grounds. Arizona institutions have banned medical marijuana from campuses.

Legalization in other states does not seem to have majorly disrupted operations.

A spokesman from University of Colorado, Boulder, told The Boston Globe last year that policy hasn't shifted in Colorado, but he hadn't seen evidence police dealt with any more marijuana-related incidents in recent years. The Globe also reported that Massachusetts institutions would not permit marijuana on campuses.

Evidence suggests that college students do take advantage of more liberal weed laws. One study found that Oregon students were using more marijuana since its legalization in 2015. While the report's authors noted the increase, they also said the effects of this boom and weed's legalization had yet to be more fully studied.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Despite more open marijuana laws, colleges still banning it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some states have removed criminal penalties for marijuana, and many others have legalized it for medical and -- more rarely -- recreational use, the drug remains forbidden at colleges in such states.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 3: Professional Association-RA Training

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 3: Professional Association-RA Training

# data[].attributes.body
The Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I) is a professional association serving higher education institutions of all types and sizes; they invest resources, such as research products, leadership tools, and training programs, in order for campus housing and residence life professionals to provide an exceptional residence life experience to their students. They offer online courses for resident assistants (RAs), and one of the modules detailed in the training involves teaching RAs how to become an effective agent for the university. In addition to learning university policy, it will benefit an RA to learn from a professional association the importance of advocating for the university. Learning how to conduct searches properly or report suspicious conduct leading to a full-time/part-time staff search of a resident student's room will help the university avoid legal liability.

Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.acuho-i.org/about

Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.acuho-i.org/online-learning/courses-and-certificates/being-a-resident-assistant-101?portalid=0

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 11: Ethical Principle-Institutional Responsibility 

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 11: Ethical Principle-Institutional Responsibility 

# data[].attributes.body
According to the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), student affairs professionals have a responsibility to the institutions who employ them. Student affairs professionals must incorporate institutional policies, while exercising professional judgment along with their professional standards to inform best practices. Employees who work in residence halls build a relationship with the students who reside there, which may cause conflict when a situation arises when a staff member is required to perform a search, especially if the search results in seizing property. Although, the residence life professional may feel conflicted with their duty and preserving their relationship with the student resident, they hold a responsibility to support the institution’s policies and best interests.

American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (2006). Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure Slide 13: Recommendations for Best Practices

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure Slide 13: Recommendations for Best Practices

# data[].attributes.body
Establish clear, well-defined university policies in accordance with the law.

Provide adequate and thorough training to all employees who work in the resident halls.

Student affairs professionals and campus police need to work cooperatively to align with university policies.

Resident assistants (RAs) require comparable training to full-time/part-time university officials.

Student affairs professionals must act in accordance with the best interest of the university, as well as the resident student.

Establish a sense of comradery within the community of the residence halls to establish a supportive and cooperative environment.