Featured Publications

Labor, Employment and Benefits: Alert - February 6, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied an employer’s request for review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that tipped employees spending more than 20 percent of their time performing related but non-tipped duties must be paid the full minimum wage for that time, without the tip credit.

More

Securities & Financial News to Note : Bulletin - February 6, 2012

This bulletin is published every other week on Monday and is disseminated via electronic mail. It features brief summaries of current legal developments in the SEC/corporate, accounting/tax, banking, litigation, as well as other business and financial service areas when appropriate.

More

Search Our Library

Search

  • Print Article
  • Email this page to a friend
  • Print Newsletter / Alert
Education
Newsletter - December 2008
 
In this Issue...
State Court Finds Student Had Expectation of Privacy in Public University Dormitory Hallway
 
December 19, 2008
 
Christine Freund McHugh- Boston

Recently, the Court of Appeals of Washington State in State v. Houvener, 145 Wash. App. 408, 186 P.3d, 370 (June 26, 2008), affirmed a holding that campus police officers at a public university violated a student’s privacy rights by entering his dormitory hallway. As a result of this privacy interest, the evidence against the student charged with residential burglary was suppressed because it had been obtained by an illegal search. The Court held that the Washington State University (“University”) police had no legal authority to enter the hallway because the college student had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his dormitory “living group.” The nature of the living situation and the fact that entry was limited to occupants and their guests led to the Court’s holding that students residing there could expect a high degree of privacy.

A Common Privacy Interest

Although privacy interests generally are not protected in the hallways of apartment buildings, this public university dormitory was characterized as a “living group” similar to a fraternity, where students on each floor shared a study area and bathroom. These activities of an “intimate nature” in the hallway were therefore reasonably protected. The University recognized each floor as an independent residential area, and the residents of each area were responsible for the rules, decorations, and damages to their own common spaces. The Court held that these shared close quarters, intimate spaces, and common academic and social experience gave rise to a common privacy interest. Additionally, entrance to the dormitory was limited to residents and their guests. The Court noted that although dormitory employees, including janitors and residential staff, had implied permission to enter, campus police officers did not, despite the fact that they had been given dormitory passkeys to access the buildings for walk-through inspections.

Although this ruling applies only to Washington State University, public colleges and universities in other states have taken note of the Court’s decision. It is unclear whether a court would find that these same privacy interests apply in other dormitory living arrangements, such as students who live in suites and whose hallways thus may not take on the “intimate nature” cited by the Court. Nevertheless, because dormitory patrols by campus police are common practices throughout the country, some schools have taken steps to update their dormitory visitor policies to allow for entry by police and other university or safety personnel. Future case law hopefully will shed more light on this important student privacy and campus safety issue.

For more information, contact:

Christine Z. Freund
617.854.1446
christine.freund@hklaw.com
toll free: 1.888.688.8500

Related Practices