The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3 - 73

Privacy in Dormitory Rooms

was no merit to medlock's due process claim.
"the in-your-face flagrancy of medlock's violation of university rules . . . and of indiana's
criminal law, required the university to take
immediate remedial action if its commitment
to its rules, and to legality, was not to be questioned," posner observed. rejecting medlock's
argument that he was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing prior to being suspended, posner
wrote the court was "reluctant to encourage
further bureaucratization by judicializing university disciplinary proceedings" (p. 871).
posner denied medlock's fourth amendment claim as well. medlock had argued evidence seized in the dorm-room search should
have been excluded at his iu suspension
hearing because it had been obtained without
a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment. posner rejected medlock's arguments.
first, the judge pointed out, the exclusionary
rule only applies to criminal proceedings. even
if the evidence had been obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, that violation
would not bar the university from considering
the evidence at a campus administrative proceeding. in any event, posner wrote, medlock's
fourth amendment rights were not violated.
medlock consented to have his room searched
for contraband and health or safety violations.
"he could have lived off campus and thus have
avoided being governed by the code. he chose
to trade some of his privacy for a dorm room"
(p. 872).
moreover, the student inspectors who visited
medlock's dormitory room were engaged in a
"lawful regulatory search" that did not require
a warrant (p. 872). Warrants are not required,
posner ruled, when governmental actors are
advancing "special needs" beyond the needs

of law enforcement. requiring a warrant in a
school setting "would unduly interfere with the
maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed [in such a setting]"
(p. 72). posner acknowledged iu campus police
were engaged in a criminal investigation when
they searched his dorm room, and medlock had
not consented to such a search. nevertheless,
in posner's view, the intrusion on medlock's
privacy by campus inspectors was already complete before a police officer arrived on the scene
and any further intrusion into his privacy by the
police presence was minimal.
the Medlock decision is in harmony with
earlier judicial decisions about routine dormroom inspections, but it is likely to be particularly persuasive because a highly respected
federal appellate court judge wrote it with great
clarity. for higher education officials, Medlock
is most significant for its ruling that routine
dorm-room inspections by university officials
are regulatory searches that do not require a
warrant so long as the searches are not conducted for law enforcement purposes.

. . . private colleges and
universities are not governmental
entities, and they do not operate
under Fourth Amendment
constraints unless they conduct
searches in concert with the
police or at the behest of law
enforcement authorities .
V o l u m e 4 4 , No. 3 * 2 0 1 8

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3