Commonwealth v. McCloskey
217 Pa. Superior Ct. 432 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches requires police officers, even with a valid warrant, to announce their identity and purpose before entering a private dwelling, including a college dormitory room. A university's contractual right to inspect a student's room does not waive the student's reasonable expectation of privacy from governmental intrusion or authorize the university to consent to a police search.
Facts:
- Roy Wilson McCloskey was a student at Bucknell University and rented a dormitory room in Swartz Hall.
- McCloskey's room contract with the university stated, 'the University reserves the right of inspection of this room.'
- A narcotics agent and a state trooper obtained a search warrant to look for marijuana in McCloskey's room.
- The officers met with the university's Dean of Men, John Dunlop, and the head resident of Swartz Hall, a Mr. Skitmoore.
- The officers, along with Dunlop and Skitmoore, proceeded to McCloskey's third-floor room.
- Without first knocking or announcing their identity or purpose, the officials used Skitmoore's passkey to unlock the door and enter the room.
- Upon entering, the officers found McCloskey and discovered a quantity of marijuana after searching the room.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy Wilson McCloskey was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.
- McCloskey was found guilty after a nonjury trial in the court of first instance.
- The trial court sentenced McCloskey to three years of probation and a fine of $1,000.
- McCloskey, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court, arguing the evidence against him was obtained through an illegal search.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce rule apply to a search of a college dormitory room, making a police search conducted by entering the room with a university-provided passkey without prior announcement of identity or purpose unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Cercone, J.
Yes. The Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce rule applies to college dormitory rooms, and a police entry using a passkey without announcing identity and purpose is an unconstitutional search. A student possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in their dormitory room, which is analogous to an apartment or hotel room. The court reasoned that using a passkey to enter is equivalent to a forcible breaking under the Fourth Amendment, as established in Sabbath v. United States. The university's contractual right to inspect the room is for administrative purposes and does not constitute a waiver of the student's constitutional right or grant the university authority to consent to a police search. As there were no exigent circumstances to justify the unannounced entry, the search was improper.
Dissenting - Wright, P. J.
No. The search was constitutional because a student in a dormitory does not have the same expectation of privacy as one in an apartment. The dissent argued that by signing a room contract explicitly granting the university a 'right of inspection,' McCloskey had no reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion. The dissent distinguished a dorm room from an apartment or hotel room and argued that McCloskey had effectively consented to such entries, making the knock-and-announce rule inapplicable.
Concurring - Montgomery, J.
Yes. The search was unconstitutional for the reasons stated by the majority, but also because the search warrant itself was issued without probable cause. The concurrence explained that the affidavit supporting the warrant was based on unreliable 'hearsay on hearsay' from an arrested individual, relayed through multiple officers. This information lacked the necessary corroboration and reliability to meet the probable cause standard established in Aguilar v. Texas and Spinelli v. United States, making the warrant independently invalid.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends Fourth Amendment protections to students in university housing, establishing that a dormitory room is considered a private dwelling with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It clarifies that a university's administrative authority over its property does not override a student's individual constitutional rights against unreasonable searches by law enforcement. The ruling reinforces the stringency of the knock-and-announce rule, affirming that the method of entry (passkey vs. breaking down the door) is irrelevant if the intrusion is unannounced.
