Dorm search yields bonanza – but was it legal?
February 2, 2010 by Tom D'AgostinoPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
Responding to a report of a student “waving a knife around,” college police officers went to his room and found the knife – and much more. The big question: Was the search legal?
Two Boston College students told campus police that student Daniel Carr had been bullying other students and “waving a knife around.” They also said another student said he saw the butt of a gun in Carr’s dorm – while adding the student thought the gun might be a fake.
When a campus police officer knocked on Carr’s dorm room door, the door opened and he entered. When questioned, Carr produced a plastic replica of a handgun. Carr and his roommate signed forms consenting to a search, and officers found more weapons as well as cocaine, marijuana and psilocybin.
In subsequent criminal proceedings, a trial judge suppressed all the evidence found. Why? Because the officer didn’t wait for an invitation to enter the room, and the students did not voluntarily consent to the search.
An appeals court reversed the trial judge’s ruling and held the evidence was admissible. The officer’s initial entry was justified because he relied on a credible report, the appeals court said. And the evidence showed Carr and his roommate freely and voluntarily consented to the search, it added.
Cite: Commonwealth v. Carr.
Do you agree with the court’s ruling? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
Tags: Boston College, Fourth Amendment, residence life, search and seizure
Loading ...
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
If the student didn’t consent to the search, and if the officer didn’t have a search warrant, then I agree with the
court that this was unreasonable search and seizure.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:17 am
As the article says, both students signed consent forms. If they hadn’t, the search would have been illegal. Since they did, anything found was fair game. They didn’t have to consent and they could have withdrawn that consent at any time. Their wounds are self-inflicted.
February 5th, 2010 at 11:16 am
The thing that bothers me about these cases is that the questions are all about if the police actions were legal and we seem to overlook that the actions of the students were *not* legal.
The police acted on credible information and the students signed the consent. They got caught and deserve their punishment. So why are we trying to blame the police?
February 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I suppose if the police had not been proactive, and Carr proceeded to go “Columbine” then the police would have been blamed for not being proactive. You just can’t seem to win when attempting to enforce the law.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
“The police acted on credible information and the students signed the consent. They got caught and deserve their punishment. So why are we trying to blame the police?”
Because that’s how lawyers make their living. When in doubt, the police are to blame. Never mind that the students may have been committing felonies, the police didn’t say “pretty please” etc. The object of the exercise is to assign blame. Since they can’t possibly admit that the students were wrong, then it must have been the police who screwed up.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Not enough information. When I lived in a dorm, the school (read “campus police”) had the right to enter at any time — signing away our 4th Amendment right was a requirement of living on campus. I’d need to know more about this specific school’s policies before weighing in.
(Also, did the search happen minutes after the guy was “waving a knife around” or days later — this makes a difference. Brandishing a knife is a felony in some areas, and police could enter to perform an arrest.)
February 5th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Police should have sought out residence hall staff, an RA, who like any college official may enter a residence hall room. RA knocks, identifies himself, and directs that room door be opened. If student does not enter, RA keys in to room, questions the resident about report, while police do a visually scan of the room and respond to any illegal item in plain view. Room seach by police, when resident does not give consent, means warrant is needed. Room search by RA, no search warrant needed.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Pineshadow Said: “If the student didn’t consent to the search, and if the officer didn’t have a search warrant, then I agree with the court that this was unreasonable search and seizure.”
Did you even READ the article? My guess is no, because otherwise you’d know that they did consent. (They signed forms allowing it.)
If the police hadn’t had those forms, they wouldn’t have been able to search.
If the students weren’t stupid, they would have refused to sign the papers.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:32 am
“Room search by RA, no search warrant needed.”
Under what rule of law does that appear? An RA cannot waive someone’s 4th Amendment rights, just like your landlord cannot grant permission for the police to search your house. In the case at point, both occupants gave written consent to search. This is an important point, because if one of them hadn’t, then the other tenant’s private property/space would have been excluded from the legal search area.