Running head: PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Promoting an Educational Environment:

An Examination of Search and Seizure Policies in University Residence Halls
Russell C. Aivazian
Loyola University Chicago

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

One of the primary functions of higher education institutions is the promotion of an

environment that is conducive to learning and the development of knowledge. This educational
environment includes not only the spaces where students learn, but, in many circumstances,
where students call home as well. Depending on the type of institution and contractual
relationship with students, residence halls have often been the topic of legal cases that challenge
the universitys authority to promote an educational environment on campus. More specifically,
as illicit drug use has increased in the college environment, universities are responding with a
variety of policies that attempt to reduce the issue among their student population.
In a recent study conducted by the University of Michigan, illicit drug use has been rising
gradually among students: from 34 percent in 2006 to 39 percent in 2013. Additionally, about
half of all full-time college students have used an illicit drug at some point in their life, with
about four in 10 using such drugs in a 12-month period (Wadley & Carlier, 2014). Even though
there has been a recent push to legalize marijuana (the drug most used in the Michigan study),
universities have remained firm on the need to keep illicit drugs out of their learning
environments. Besides some serious health risks associated with illicit drug use, universities
have an interest to keep their environments free of behavior that deters from the educational
mission of the institution. Arguably, since universities have more control over their property,
residence halls have been the area where university officials have asserted their authority to
prevent illicit drug use through room searches and the ensuing conduct and legal processes.
What is of legal importance for universities is the understanding of the institutions role
to protect the Fourth Amendment right of their students. When forming policies and procedures
around entering a students room and the sanctions for illicit drug use and possession,
universities must weigh the various costs and benefits associated with their course of action.

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Specifically, at Loyola University Chicago student learning and development has been
preference in the policies that govern this behavior. Loyola staff members (usually residence life
professionals) conduct searches with consultation and approval from senior leadership members
without an issued searched warrant. This option prevents the university from prosecuting
students in the City of Chicago and, instead, favors the educational opportunities of a formal
conduct meeting. While this option may help the university create an educational environment,
Loyola is still faced with a 50 percent increase of drug-related cases over the past year (T. Love,
personal communication, March 31, 2015). Given that this may be a continued issue, Loyola
may need to examine its policies and procedures related to residence hall search and seizures as
well as its drug policy in order to find ways to combat illicit drug use and possession on campus.
In order to make the most informed decision, this paper will discuss the legal precedents related
to university search and seizures in residence halls. Using this analysis, the processes at three
similar and/or aspirational institutions (Illinois Institute of Technology, Marquette University,
and Northwestern University) will be examined in order to provide possible recommendations
for a possible policy change at Loyola.
Legal Foundations
Even though institutions of higher education have broad authority to create learning
environments, they must still recognize the constitutionally recognized rights of their students.
Courts often look to Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969) to assert this point. In Tinker,
students wearing black armbands in protest to the Vietnam War were asked to remove them or be
suspended until the student returned without an armband. Even though this case relates
specifically to a students First Amendment rights, the court asserted that [i]t can hardly be
argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

expression at the schoolhouse gate (Tinker v. Des Monines, 1969). The court explained, citing
Keyishian v. Board of Regents (385 U.S. 589, 1967): The vigilant protection of constitutional
freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. In the case of
freedom of expression, it is important to protect the rights of students in order to promote an
educational environment that allows students to share ideas and learn from their peers. The
Supreme Court goes further in Tinker and explains that school officials can justify the censoring
of expression if the censoring was caused by something more than possible discomfort and
unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969).
Even though Tinker does not cover the protections given by the Fourth Amendment, the courts
use this case to assert that a students constitutional rights (in public institutions) do not end
when they walk on to or reside on campus.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Room searches at public institutions are governed by the Fourth Amendment, delegated
to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (OLeary, Lapp, & Wintner, 2009). The Fourth
Amendment asserts the:
[R]ight of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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. (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, pp. 835836).
Using Tinker as a backdrop, Morale v. Grigel (422 F. Supp. 988, 1976) helps to explain the
Fourth Amendment rights of students residing in the residence halls, specifically relating to the
reasonableness of a search. In this case, Morale, a resident at the New Hampshire Technical

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Institute, brought suit against Grigel, a Resident Assistant (RA) and various other university
officials because he believed that the searches of his room that found marijuana and drug
paraphernalia was unlawful. During a room-to-room inspection to find a stolen stereo, Morales
room was visually inspected after he allowed Grigel and the Head Resident, Lane, into the room.
During the initial search, Grigel and Lane did not find the stereo, but noticed a small bag above
the ceiling and a haze in the room that was assumed to be marijuana smoke. Grigel checked
Morales room again with the master key obtained from Lane under a false account that he was
locked out of his room (he was not given any authority to do the second search), but did not find
the stereo or marijuana in the room. During a subsequent confrontation between Grigel and
Morale, marijuana was found in the room and it was reported to Lane, who searched the room
and confiscated marijuana and a pipe. This led to a hearing and Morales removal from campus.
In order to test the reasonableness of the searches outlined in the Fourth Amendment,
the judge in Morale balanced the need to search against the invasion which the search entails
(Morale v. Grigel, 1976). Morale established that a students residence hall room, even though
owned by the university, is their home away from home and can expect that once they close
their door, their solitude and secrecy will not be disturbed by a governmental intrusion without
at least permission, if not invitation (Morale v. Grigel, 1976). As a result, the court found that
the searches that led to Morales dismissal were in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights
because they were motivation by a desire to locate the lost stereo rather than looking for criminal
evidence in accordance with the schools policies. Even though this decision does not cover the
totality of the United States justice system, it does provide guidance for universities when
conducting searches in their residential facilities. Specifically, in order for a search to be
allowed, universities must prove that furthers its functioning as an educational institution.

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Furthermore, the search must further an interest that is separate and distinct (Morale v. Grigel,
1976) from that of criminal law in order to be deemed a reasonable search.
Warrantless Searches
Courts have held that, in general, searches done without a warrant are allowed under the
Fourth Amendment in a few narrowly constructed circumstances: exigent circumstances, a
search incident to a lawful arrest, plain view doctrine, and consent (OLeary, Lapp, & Wintner,
2009). Exigent circumstances are present when the immediate risk of harm makes obtaining a
proper warrant impossible. While there is not much case law examines this circumstance under
the lens of university residence halls, it can be reasonably assumed that universities may use this
circumstance as a means to enter student rooms if there is an immediate risk to the student or the
community. In addition to exigent circumstances, warrantless searches are also allowed if they
result from a lawful arrest. In other words, if a student is arrested, the police can search their
room for evidence pertaining to the crime. While these first two circumstances are not widely
argued in the courts (for residence hall searches), they must still be considered with drafting
policies and procedures for room inspections.
The last two circumstances (plain view and consent) are the circumstances that most
appear in case law (consent will be discussed later). The plain view doctrine gives law
enforcement officials the ability to seize property that is incriminating evidence when the
property is in plain view of where the officer has the right to be (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). This
doctrine was challenged in the Massachusetts Supreme Court case of Commonwealth v. Neilson
(243 Mass. 75, 1996). In Commonwealth, the university officials at Fitchburg State College
entered Eric Neilsons room to search for a cat that was suspected of being in the room during a
health and safety inspection. Upon inspection, the university officials opened Neilsons closet

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

because they suspected a possible fire hazard. When they opened the closet, university officials
found marijuana plants, fertilizer, lights, and other items used for marijuana cultivation and use.
Upon finding the plants, the university officials called the campus police, who documented the
findings and removed all of the drug paraphernalia from the room without a warrant. The court
in Commonwealth found that while the initial health and safety inspection by the university
officials was not a violation of Neilsons Fourth Amendment rights, the warrantless entry into
Neilsons room and subsequent seizure of his property (although illegal) violated his
constitutionally protected rights. Arguing that the university officials presence in the room was
by consent and the drugs were in plain view, the university argued that the officers warrantless
entry was proper. The court disagreed citing that the police were not in a place where the
officer has a right to be (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 458) when they made their plain view
observations (Commonwealth v. Neilson, 1996) of the room.
Possible Consequences
Commonwealth also highlights the consequences institutions may face if they do not
uphold a students Fourth Amendment rights. Since the university in Commonwealth was found
to not properly obtain a search warrant for the items confiscated, the court suppressed the
evidence that was collected from the search. It is important to note that the suppression of
evidence usually applies to trial proceedings where the university or state is seeking to prosecute
student for possession of illicit substances. At many private institutions, specifically Loyola, law
enforcement officials are rarely involved in residence hall searches, as the students are held
responsible under the universitys code of conduct.
In addition to the suppression of evidence, university officials may be found responsible
under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Section 1983 explains: any person, acting

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

under color of state law, who deprives another of his or her rights under federal law, is liable to
that person (Love, 2015). Courts have upheld the liability of university officials at public
institutions to be held liable under Section 1983 if they deprive students of their rights. The
court in Smyth v. Lubbers (398 F.Supp. 777, 1975) furthered this interpretation to be applicable to
university officials who violate a students Fourth Amendment rights. The five plaintiffs in this
case resided in the residence halls at Grand Valley State College in Michigan whose rooms were
searched without warrants. During the search, marijuana was discovered and two students were
suspended from the school. The students sought injunctive relief from the court because they
alleged that the university officials acted under the color of state law and are liable under
Section 1983. The court agreed in this case asserting: [i]f a person acts under color of law, it is
irrelevant whether the official was acting within or without the scope of his employment by
common law standards (Smyth v. Lubbers, 1975). The important takeaway from the Smyth
decision is that both the university and its officials (in their individual capacities) can be held
liable if they conduct an improper search that violates a students Fourth Amendment rights.
While this statute may apply most broadly to public institutions, officials at private institutions
may also be held liable under Section 1983 if they act as a state actor under the color of state law
(see Gonzaga v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 2002).
Housing Contracts
For both public and private institutions, students enter into contracts with both the school
and, if applicable, with the department in charge of on campus housing. In various court cases,
the courts have established that the relationship between students who live on campus and the
university as similar to that of an apartment or hotel room. Piazzola v. Watkins (442 F.2d 284,
1971), the courts (citing Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 1970) argued that students rent their

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

room for a certain period of time (lessees) and agree to abide by the rules established by the
university (lessor). While students may enjoy many of the Fourth Amendment considerations
above, the contracts that they may enter into may restrict some of these rights. The role of
contracts, specifically for student housing, have been contested widely in the courts, most
notably through Piazzola and Devers v Southern (712 So.2d 199, 1998). Even though both of
the cases are applicable to the Fifth Circuit, they have both been widely cited when courts
examine the various challenges to an institutions housing policies.
In Piazzola, two witnesses told the Chief of Police at Troy State University that there was
marijuana present in the residence halls at the university. The Chief of Police notified the Dean
of Men, who gave permission for the police to enter the students rooms. Prior to the search, the
students were not advised about the entry into their room (no consent given) and warrants were
not obtained because the university believed it had probable cause under its housing contract.
The universitys regulations, that were known by and agreed upon by the students in the case,
stated: The college reserves the right to enter rooms for inspection purposes. If the
administration deems it necessary, the room may be searched and the occupant required to open
his personal baggage and any other personal material which is sealed (Piazzola v. Watkins,
1971). During the first room inspection, drugs were not found. However, during a second
inspection (without notice) marijuana was found and the students were arrested and brought up
on criminal drug charges.
Even though the university claimed that they had the right to conduct the search, the
courts disagreed. Specifically, the Piazzola court argued that the universitys regulation could
not be applied to broadly give consent to search for evidence that leads to a criminal prosecution.
Furthermore, the policy showed an unconstitutional attempt to require a student to waive his

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

10

protection from unreasonable searches and seizures as a condition to his occupancy of a college
dormitory room (Piazzola v. Watkins, 1971). While the policy was in place to give the
university the power to search the students spaces, the court challenged the broad scope of the
regulation. In order for universities to create and enforce policies that allow the search and
seizure of a students property, the courts have remained firm on the need for institutions to avoid
creating a broad policy. Rather, the policy should be narrowly tailored and be specific in the
circumstances where a students space will be entered without their permission. This was further
challenged in Devers v. Southern.
In Devers, a student at Southern University was arrested following the discovery of
marijuana in his residence hall room. The discovery was made during a dormitory sweep
policy authorized by Southerns housing agreement: The University reserves all rights in
connection with assignments of rooms, inspection of rooms with police, and the termination of
room occupancy (Devers v. Southern, 1998). Upon finding the marijuana in the room, the
student was expelled from the university. The clear difference in Devers is the extremely broad
scope that Southerns agreement gives to university personnel and the police to search a students
space without a warrant. The court declared the policy prima facie unconstitutional as it violated
his Fourth Amendment rights as a student living on campus. Additionally, the court ruled that
there is no set of circumstances under which the regulation would be valid (Devers v. Southern,
1998). Since students do not waive their rights when they enter a university, institutions must
balance the need to search against the invasion in which the search entails in order for the search
to be deemed reasonable. In this case, the courts balanced the need of the university to generally
search rooms for drugs and weapons over the invasive nature of the police search. Obviously,
they court ruled that the nature of the search outweighed the need for the search to occur, but

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

11

there have been other times where the courts have allowed universities to enter residence hall
rooms without a properly issued warrant, namely health and safety inspections. The courts have
been consistent in many cases (Commonwealth, Devers, Piazzola, etc.) and allowed universities
to conduct health and safety inspections if clearly outlined in the housing contract or student
policies.
As Piazzola and Devers illustrate, universities (both public and private) must be careful
when crafting their policies that govern the institutions policies on search and seizure. In
general, if universities are reserving the right to enter a space without a warrant, the policy must
be narrowly tailored so that students and administrators are aware of the circumstances that
would result in a room inspection. While a housing contract may provide some type of consent
for administrative searches, the courts have argued against warrantless searches when they are
conducted to gather evidence for a criminal investigation. Even though most of the cases
explained above relate to students at public institutions, private institutions should still heed the
advice of the courts when crafting search policies for residents.
Search and Seizure Policies in Practice
Universities have the power to create policies and procedures that further the educational
mission and environment for students. Almost all public and private institutions have
stipulations in their student or housing policies that allow university officials to enter student
rooms for various reasons. As Piazzola and Devers illustrated, universities must be careful and
narrowly tailor their policies. In an effort to combat the increased drug use on Loyolas campus,
it is important to examine the policies at peer and aspirational institutions in order to weigh the
alternatives to Loyolas current approach. While all of the institutions profiled are private
institutions (Loyola, Illinois Institute of Technology, Northwestern, and Marquette), they each

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

12

approach room searches differently and can provide the framework for making recommendations
for the improvement of Loyolas current policy structure.
Loyola University Chicago
Loyolas current room entry policy, as outlined in the Community Standards (2015), the
University reserves the right to allow authorized personnel to enter student rooms and will
make a reasonable attempt to protect the students privacy (p. 25). While university officials
have the right to confiscate items in violation of federal, state, local, or university polices, an
effort must be made to have students present at the time of the search. If that does not happen,
students will be advised if the search resulted in any violations or confiscation of items. In most
cases, Residence Life professionals (including Resident Assistants) enter rooms for routine
health and safety inspections, where students are made aware of the inspections at least a week in
advance. In practice, Residence Life professional staff will conduct room searches outside of
health and safety inspections if there is reason to believe that a policy violation is occurring or
the health and safety of the student or community is at risk. These searches are conducted with
the approval of a Residence Life leadership team member and are usually in tandem with another
professional or student staff member.
In the circumstances where drugs or drug paraphernalia are found in a residents room,
the items will be documented and handed over to Campus Safety officers, who are sworn police
officers in the State of Illinois. Where there are some circumstances where students could be
prosecuted criminally, students are usually held responsible for their actions through the conduct
system. This choice allows university officials to have developmental conversations with
students and make attempts to have students reflect on their actions that led them to violate
university policies. The universitys drug policy is firm: Possession, use, transfer, distribution,

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

13

manufacture, or sale of illicit drugs is prohibited (Community Standards, 2015, p. 14).

Violators of the policy will be assigned sanctions according to the sanctioning guidelines
outlined in the Community Standards. For most offenses, students can receive a $50-100 fine,
10-20 service hours, parental notification (if the student is under 21) and an educational sanction
(future offenses increase in magnitude). While the sanctioning guidelines are set in the
Community Standards, sanctioning can depend on the circumstances and the discretion of the
conduct officer. This could lead to inconsistent sanctioning and/or sanctions that fail to prevent
further offenses.
Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)
Similar to the room entry policy at Loyola, IITs room inspection, entry, and search
policy grants:
Students only such limited privacy in their rooms as may be consistent with the basic
responsibilities of IIT to fulfill its educational functions and to conduct its day-to-day
operations. Student acknowledges that these responsibilities require IIT to have a
reasonable right to enter Students room to assure proper upkeep, confirm occupancy, to
provide for the health and safety of Student and/or other students, and/or to investigate,
when reasonable suspicion exists, possible violations of law or IIT regulations occurring
therein. (2014-2015 Room & Board Contract Terms, 2014).
What is notable about this policy is IITs explanation of the privacy rights that students enjoy as
a result of living on campus. As has been mentioned before, institutions retain the right to create
policies that further the educational environment for their students. IIT is clear that they have the
right to search student rooms as long as the search allows the university to maintain its
educational functions. Using the balancing analysis from Devers, IITs policy allows for

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

14

university officials to broadly conduct searches when the educational environment is threatened.
Specifically for drug-related searches, the university has the right to conduct a search since there
may be possible violations of university or state law.
If found to be in possession or using illegal drugs in the IIT residence halls, the student
code of conduct explains that the students housing contract is immediately cancelled and they
are required to move out in 72 hours (Policies, Regulations, and Procedures, 2014). While this
policy may seem harsh, IIT continues to investigate only five drug-related cases every academic
year (A. Schipma, personal communication, April 7, 2015). This type of policy, however, can
raise issues related to the issue of cancelling a students housing contract with short notice. IITs
policy is clear on their website and in the housing contract, which gives the university the
authority to enforce the policy. However, the responsibility falls on the residence life staff and
conduct administrators to ensure that students are given due process in the decision to cancel
their housing contract. From the perspective of student learning, ending contracts may create a
sanction for drug-related behavior, however, it may be a lost opportunity for student affairs
professionals to have a developmental conversation with students. While not clear in the policy,
IIT also reserves the right in their student code of conduct to contact the Chicago Police
Department for assistance with respect to the violation of any Illinois law (Policies,
Regulations, and Procedures, 2014). While this also may be another important tactic to cut down
on drug-related incidents at IIT, the university will also have to be careful to gather the proper
consent or documentation to perform a search in a students space, if the police are involved and
the search is intended to find evidence for a criminal investigation.

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

15

Northwestern University
Even though Northwestern is a private institution, it does not perform searches without
prior consent from the resident of the room or a search warrant. Specifically for drug-related
offenses the student code of conduct explains:
The University Police Department will investigate whenever it has reason to believe
illegal drugs are being sold or used on the campus. The department, pursuant to
University policy, will make arrests of any individuals on campus or in the adjacent
neighborhood under jurisdiction of University Police when it has sufficient evidence of
violations of any applicable drug laws. Normal circumstances under which the
department will make arrests for drug abuse are upon direct firsthand knowledge of a law
violation taking place, upon the signed complaint of an individual, or upon sufficient
evidence of law violation to obtain a search warrant. (Northwestern University Student
Handbook 2014-2015, 2014, p.55).
From what can be gleaned from the student handbook, Northwestern hopes to combat drug use
on campus by involving the police when there is a possible drug violation. While the student
handbook is not clear about the specific consequences for drug use or possession, students may
face interim suspension as a result of being found with drug-related items. Similar to the policy
at IIT, Northwesterns policy seems to be a way to cut down on drug-related incidents by
increasing the magnitude of sanctioning. To fulfill the recommendations for housing contracts,
the university does a good job of explicitly outlining the role of various university officials in
room searches and drug-related cases. Since the courts will look to the university policies to see
if the university officials or campus police were acting under the color of state law, their

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

16

approach would make it clear for the court to make the distinction between a state actor and a
university staff member in their official capacity.
Marquette University
Of the more specific of the policies explored in this case study, Marquettes room entry
procedures are clearly outlined in their housing contract. Specifically, Marquettes housing
contracts allows authorized university personnel to enter and search a residence hall room
(including RAs, Department of Public Safety, and maintenance) if there are imminent hazards to
the property or students (exigent circumstances), violation of policy or law, or if contraband
items are present but concealed from view (Policies and Procedures, n.d.). In this last
circumstance, university staff will knock and identify themselves. If there is not an answer, the
students room will be searched for contraband in plain-view. If a search is necessary, the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) will perform the search, with the preference that the student
is present during the search, however the students need not give permission to search (Policies
and Procedures, n.d.). If the students do not consent to the search or are not present, DPS will
continue with the search and leave notice of the search and/or any items confiscated from the
room. While this policy gives a great amount of flexibility to the university to conduct a search
for drug-related items, the universitys findings would most likely not be admissible in court.
The policy may be sound, but it may close off an option for the university to pursue any future
legal action. The university does state that drug-related incidents could result in expulsion,
which may be the maximum level of sanctioning the university wants to provide.
Specifically for drug-related incidents, Marquette has established mandatory minimums
for policy violations. Much like Loyola, Marquette uses three categories of violations.
However, the mandatory sanction for a students first drug-related offense is a $100 fine and

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

17

University Probation. Any further offenses will result in a $200 fine and suspension. This
structure is an interesting combination of offering some time for student development and
reflection, while enforcing a serious sanction for students who violate the drug policy.
Recommendations
While Loyolas policy would match the tests put forth by the courts, there are areas where
the room search and drug policies can help to cut down on drug-related offenses at the
institution. Given that Loyolas Campus Safety department acts as a state actor in their capacity
as sworn police officers in Illinois, involvement with campus safety in room searches may
provide a barrier to conducting searches when the only cause is the smell of marijuana (which is
most of the cases). Additionally, it may not be in the universitys best interest to charge students
criminally, when it may take a good amount of time for their case to be heard. Rather than
involving Campus Safety for every search, Loyola should consider updating its policies to
establish the specific roles and procedures in a room search for drug-related items. Specifically,
the university should think about if there are times where we would like to involve Campus
Safety officers when there is a large quantity of drugs or when repeated offenses have been
identified. The courts would look to Loyolas policies if challenged to determine what the role of
university officials when responding to drug-related cases (A/RDs, RAs, Campus Safety, etc.).
Similar to Northwestern and Marquettes policy, this policy addition can be added specifically to
the drug policy in the student handbook. Additionally, the university would need to train
Residence Life staff to ensure that protocol is followed when drugs are involved in the case.
Perhaps more important to reducing drug-related incidents on campus, the Office of
Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution (OSCCR) should consider enforcing mandatory
minimum sanctioning. Since Loyolas current model lends itself to flexible sanctioning

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

18

depending on an individual students circumstances, the university could start to cut down on
cases and repeat offenders if there are more serious sanctions placed for drug-related cases.
Loyola would have to overcome a learning curve with students that can be reduced if proactive
during orientation and publicity in the residential facilities. If the new policy adopts Marquettes
structure, Loyolas conduct administrators could have students to sign an action plan or
agreement that outlines future consequences if they continue to violate drug-related policies.
This could aid in having a conversation with students about future goals that they can enact to
prevent future offenses and continued reflection. Legally, this would allow the university to
document that the consequences of future drug-related violations were clearly stated (much like
the students rights form) and can be a legally-binding agreement if the student questions a
decision for suspension or expulsion.
Especially as a Jesuit institution, Loyola has an interest in aiding in the development of
the individual student. It would not be in Loyolas interest to immediately suspend students or
end their housing contracts, however the increase of drug-related violations warrants a response
that can help to cut down on student drug use. The courts have upheld a private universitys
ability to have a conduct system and sanction students. However, universities must be mindful
that they dont take away their students constitutional rights when they attend the institution.
Even though Loyola is able to perform room searches under a different level of scrutiny than
public universities, it should not be in the business of creating a hostile environment by violating
the constitutionally protected rights of its students.

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

19

References
20142015 Room & Board Contract Terms. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
https://web.iit.edu/sites/web/files/departments/housing/pdfs/HousingContractTerms201415.pdf
Commonwealth v. Neilson, 243 Mass. 75 (1996).
Devers v Southern, 712 So.2d 199 (1998).
Kaplin, W., & Lee, B. (2014). The Law of Higher Education, Student Version (5th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Loyola University Chicago Community Standards 2014-2015. (2015, January 26). Retrieved
April 9, 2015, from http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/osccr/pdfs/LUC COMMUNITY
STANDARDS 2014-2015_updated Spring 2015.pdf
Love, T. (2015). Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 [Class handout]. Chicago, IL:
Loyola University Chicago.
Morale v. Grigel, 422 F. Supp. 988 (1976).
Northwestern University Student Handbook 201415. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://www.northwestern.edu/student-conduct/shared-assets/studenthandbook.pdf
O'Leary, K., Lapp, D., & Wintner, T. (2009). Whose Room is it Anyway? Lawful Entry and
Search of Student Dormitory Rooms. NACUANotes, 7(3).
Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284 (1971).
Policies and Procedures. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://www.marquette.edu/orl/policies/index.shtml#housingagreement.
Policies and Procedures - Drug Policy. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
http://www.marquette.edu/osd/policies/drug_policy.shtml#sanctions.

PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Policies, Regulations, and Procedures. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from
https://web.iit.edu/student-affairs/handbook/fine-print/policies-regulations-andprocedures.
Smyth v. Lubbers, 398 F.Supp. 777 (1975).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Wadley, J., & Carlier, C. (2014, September 8). College students' use of marijuana on the rise,
some drugs declining. Michigan News. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22362-college-students-use-of-marijuana-on-the-risesome-drugs-declining.

20