Devers v. Southern University

Louisiana Court of Appeal
712 So.2d 199, 97 La.App. 1 Cir. 0259 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A public university's dormitory regulation that authorizes warrantless searches of student rooms by university officials accompanied by police, based solely on a residential lease agreement, is prima facie unconstitutional as it violates students' Fourth Amendment rights.

Facts:

Patrick Devers was a student living in campus housing at Southern University.
Southern University's Housing Agreement required students to sign a document reserving the University's right to inspect rooms with police and terminate occupancy.
On March 8, 1995, a dormitory sweep, authorized by this Housing Agreement, was conducted at Southern University.
During the sweep, twelve bags of marijuana were discovered in Patrick Devers' dormitory room.
Following the discovery, Devers was issued an administrative expulsion and prohibited from attending classes by the university.

Procedural Posture:

On March 23, 1995, Patrick Devers filed a suit for damages and an injunction against Southern University in the 19th Judicial District Court.
On March 27, 1995, the trial court issued an order vacating Devers' administrative expulsion and ordering his suspension until the Southern University Judiciary Committee determined his conduct violation.
On March 28, 1995, Devers was detained, arrested, and forced off campus while gathering evidence for his disciplinary hearing.
On March 30, 1995, Devers filed a Rule for Contempt, alleging Southern University violated the March 27, 1995 court order.
The Southern University Judiciary Committee found Devers guilty of code of conduct violations and recommended expulsion, a recommendation Vice Chancellor Gerald Peoples agreed with; Devers did not pursue the administrative appeal process.
On April 10, 1995, Devers amended his original suit to assert an action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, related to the alleged unconstitutional search.
On April 17, 1995, Devers filed a second lawsuit against Gerald Peoples, Kevin Jefferson, Joseph Broaden, and Brenda Walton, seeking damages for his removal from campus.
Devers filed multiple amending petitions in his initial lawsuit, naming numerous additional individual defendants.
On May 31, 1995, the trial court rendered a judgment reflecting a settlement of the injunction portion of the suit between Devers and Southern University, reducing his expulsion to a suspension and allowing re-enrollment.
Devers' two lawsuits were consolidated on July 10, 1995.
On October 28, 1996, the trial court rendered a judgment granting Devers' motion for summary judgment, declaring Southern University's dormitory regulation authorizing warrantless searches by university officials and police officers prima facie unconstitutional.
On November 13, 1996, the trial court rendered another judgment granting summary judgment dismissing Winston DeCuir, Sidney Matthews, Patrick Fontenot, Melvin Robinson, Leeta Haynes, Roland DeRouen, Myrtle Joiner, and Jarmeca Norris as defendants.
The trial court's November 13, 1996, judgment also dismissed Linda Law Clark, the Attorney General of Louisiana, and the Louisiana Department of Justice based on the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action.
Southern University, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment declaring its dormitory sweep policy unconstitutional.
Patrick Devers, as appellee, answered the appeal, assigning errors regarding the dismissal of various defendants and the denial of discovery motions and sanctions.

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 Southern University's dormitory regulation, which authorizes warrantless searches of student rooms by university officials accompanied by police based on a residential lease agreement, violate students' Fourth Amendment rights?

Opinions:

Majority - Carter

Yes, Southern University's dormitory regulation authorizing warrantless searches of student rooms by university officials accompanied by police based on a residential lease agreement is prima facie unconstitutional because it violates students' Fourth Amendment rights. The court recognized that students occupying college dormitory rooms enjoy Fourth Amendment protection, viewing a dorm room as a student's home for all practical purposes, thus affording the same interest in privacy as any adult in their home. To determine the reasonableness of a search, a balance must be struck between the need to search and the invasion it entails. The court distinguished Southern University's regulation from those upheld in other cases (like State v. Hunter) because Southern's regulation explicitly authorized police involvement in inspections without specifying a benign administrative purpose. When police routinely assist in such entries and searches, the intrusion loses its character as a 'benign administrative search' and becomes primarily for criminal prosecution, which requires probable cause. The court held that a public university cannot condition attendance on a student's renunciation of constitutional rights, thus rejecting the argument that students consent to these sweeps by signing the housing contract. While acknowledging the university's interest in student safety and eliminating drugs/weapons, the court emphasized that this interest does not justify setting aside the usual rights of privacy enjoyed by adults, especially when law enforcement agencies themselves do not have authority for such broad warrantless sweeps. Any search must further an interest 'separate and distinct' from that served by criminal laws to be considered constitutional without a warrant. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the unconstitutionality of the policy and also affirmed the dismissal of various individual defendants and state agencies, finding that Devers failed to establish personal involvement in § 1983 claims or intentional torts for other defendants, and that certain interlocutory rulings were not appealable due to lack of irreparable harm.

Analysis:

This case is significant for reaffirming that Fourth Amendment protections extend to college students in their dormitory rooms, even within the context of university housing agreements. It clarifies that public universities cannot leverage housing contracts to bypass constitutional requirements for searches, especially when law enforcement is involved. The decision underscores the limitations on administrative search exceptions, emphasizing that such searches must be genuinely administrative and not primarily aimed at criminal prosecution to be permissible without a warrant or probable cause. Future cases will likely rely on this precedent to challenge broad university policies that infringe on student privacy rights under the guise of 'administrative convenience' or 'contractual consent.'

🤖 Gunnerbot:

Query Devers v. Southern University (1998) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.

Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.