The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3 - 71

Privacy in Dormitory Rooms

opinion, suggests as much, although the main
focus in that case pertained to a remote search
of a student's computer by a university official,
not a dormitory search.
in Heckenkamp, Jeffrey savoy, a computer
network investigator at the university of Wisconsin, learned that someone had hacked into
the university's computer network. savoy investigated and determined the culprit might be
Jerome heckenkamp, a graduate student who
had been terminated from his job at the university's computer help desk for unauthorized
activity (p. 1,144). savoy was concerned especially because the intruder had gained access
to a server that maintained email accounts
for 60,000 individuals at the university of
Wisconsin. students were preparing for final
exams at the time, and savoy believed destruction of email during this critical time particularly would be disruptive to the university.
at some point, savoy notified fBi special
agent terry rankhorn of what he had found,
and rankhorn told savoy that he intended to
get a warrant to seize heckenkamp's computer. savoy later determined university security
interests required him to take heckenkamp's
computer offline immediately. although
agent rankhorn advised savoy not to take
action because the fBi was in the process of
obtaining a warrant, savoy acted anyway. accompanied by a university detective named
scheller and other university police officers,
savoy entered heckenkamp's dormitory room
and disconnected the network cord that attached heckenkamp's computer to the university's network. While savoy and the police were
still on the premises, Detective scheller found
heckenkamp, who gave savoy the password to

his computer, waived his miranda rights, and
authorized savoy to make a copy of heckenkamp's hard drive. on the following day, fBi
agents, acting under the authority of a warrant,
searched heckenkamp's computer and his
dormitory room.
federal authorities later prosecuted heckenkamp for intentionally accessing a protected
computer without authorization. heckenkamp
sought to suppress evidence obtained from
savoy's remote search of his computer, the
copy of heckenkamp's hard drive that savoy
had obtained, and the search of his room and
computer by the fBi. the trial court denied the
motion, and heckenkamp appealed.
on appeal, the ninth Circuit ruled that the
university of Wisconsin had "special needs"
to ensure the integrity of its computer system
that justified savoy's search-even though
savoy had not obtained a warrant. "under the
special needs exception," the ninth Circuit
instructed, "a warrant is not required when
special needs, beyond the normal need for
law enforcement, make the warrant and
probable-cause requirement impracticable."
there was no evidence savoy was acting at the
behest of law enforcement authorities when
he conducted his independent investigation
of heckenkamp's activities; indeed, he apparently proceeded against the fBi's advice.
"under these circumstances," the court concluded, "a search warrant was not necessary
because savoy was acting purely within the
scope of his role as a system administrator"
(p. 1,147). therefore, savoy's remote search of
heckenkamp's computer did not violate the
fourth amendment.

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