1Running head: PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

20PROMOTING AN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Promoting an Educational Environment: An Examination of Search and Seizure Policies in University Residence Halls Russell C. AivazianLoyola University Chicago

One of the primary functions of higher education institutions is the promotion of an environment that is conducive to learning and the development of knowledge. This educational environment includes not only the spaces where students learn, but, in many circumstances, where students call home as well. Depending on the type of institution and contractual relationship with students, residence halls have often been the topic of legal cases that challenge the universitys authority to promote an educational environment on campus. More specifically, as illicit drug use has increased in the college environment, universities are responding with a variety of policies that attempt to reduce the issue among their student population. In a recent study conducted by the University of Michigan, illicit drug use has been rising gradually among students: from 34 percent in 2006 to 39 percent in 2013. Additionally, about half of all full-time college students have used an illicit drug at some point in their life, with about four in 10 using such drugs in a 12-month period (Wadley & Carlier, 2014). Even though there has been a recent push to legalize marijuana (the drug most used in the Michigan study), universities have remained firm on the need to keep illicit drugs out of their learning environments. Besides some serious health risks associated with illicit drug use, universities have an interest to keep their environments free of behavior that deters from the educational mission of the institution. Arguably, since universities have more control over their property, residence halls have been the area where university officials have asserted their authority to prevent illicit drug use through room searches and the ensuing conduct and legal processes.What is of legal importance for universities is the understanding of the institutions role to protect the Fourth Amendment right of their students. When forming policies and procedures around entering a students room and the sanctions for illicit drug use and possession, universities must weigh the various costs and benefits associated with their course of action. Specifically, at Loyola University Chicago student learning and development has been preference in the policies that govern this behavior. Loyola staff members (usually residence life professionals) conduct searches with consultation and approval from senior leadership members without an issued searched warrant. This option prevents the university from prosecuting students in the City of Chicago and, instead, favors the educational opportunities of a formal conduct meeting. While this option may help the university create an educational environment, Loyola is still faced with a 50 percent increase of drug-related cases over the past year (T. Love, personal communication, March 31, 2015). Given that this may be a continued issue, Loyola may need to examine its policies and procedures related to residence hall search and seizures as well as its drug policy in order to find ways to combat illicit drug use and possession on campus. In order to make the most informed decision, this paper will discuss the legal precedents related to university search and seizures in residence halls. Using this analysis, the processes at three similar and/or aspirational institutions (Illinois Institute of Technology, Marquette University, and Northwestern University) will be examined in order to provide possible recommendations for a possible policy change at Loyola. Legal FoundationsEven though institutions of higher education have broad authority to create learning environments, they must still recognize the constitutionally recognized rights of their students. Courts often look to Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969) to assert this point. In Tinker, students wearing black armbands in protest to the Vietnam War were asked to remove them or be suspended until the student returned without an armband. Even though this case relates specifically to a students First Amendment rights, the court asserted that [i]t can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate (Tinker v. Des Monines, 1969). The court explained, citing Keyishian v. Board of Regents (385 U.S. 589, 1967): The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. In the case of freedom of expression, it is important to protect the rights of students in order to promote an educational environment that allows students to share ideas and learn from their peers. The Supreme Court goes further in Tinker and explains that school officials can justify the censoring of expression if the censoring was caused by something more than possible discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). Even though Tinker does not cover the protections given by the Fourth Amendment, the courts use this case to assert that a students constitutional rights (in public institutions) do not end when they walk on to or reside on campus.The Fourteenth AmendmentRoom searches at public institutions are governed by the Fourth Amendment, delegated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment (OLeary, Lapp, & Wintner, 2009). The Fourth Amendment asserts the:[R]ight of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, pp. 835-836).Using Tinker as a backdrop, Morale v. Grigel (422 F. Supp. 988, 1976) helps to explain the Fourth Amendment rights of students residing in the residence halls, specifically relating to the reasonableness of a search. In this case, Morale, a resident at the New Hampshire Technical Institute, brought suit against Grigel, a Resident Assistant (RA) and various other university officials because he believed that the searches of his room that found marijuana and drug paraphernalia was unlawful. During a room-to-room inspection to find a stolen stereo, Morales room was visually inspected after he allowed Grigel and the Head Resident, Lane, into the room. During the initial search, Grigel and Lane did not find the stereo, but noticed a small bag above the ceiling and a haze in the room that was assumed to be marijuana smoke. Grigel checked Morales room again with the master key obtained from Lane under a false account that he was locked out of his room (he was not given any authority to do the second search), but did not find the stereo or marijuana in the room. During a subsequent confrontation between Grigel and Morale, marijuana was found in the room and it was reported to Lane, who searched the room and confiscated marijuana and a pipe. This led to a hearing and Morales removal from campus. In order to test the reasonableness of the searches outlined in the Fourth Amendment, the judge in Morale balanced the need to search against the invasion which the search entails (Morale v. Grigel, 1976). Morale established that a students residence hall room, even though owned by the university, is their home away from home and can expect that once they close their door, their solitude and secrecy will not be disturbed by a governmental intrusion without at least permission, if not invitation (Morale v. Grigel, 1976). As a result, the court found that the searches that led to Morales dismissal were in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because they were motivation by a desire to locate the lost stereo rather than looking for criminal evidence in accordance with the schools policies. Even though this decision does not cover the totality of the United States justice system, it does provide guidance for universities when conducting searches in their residential facilities. Specifically, in order for a search to be allowed, universities must prove that furthers its functioning as an educational institution. Furthermore, the search must further an interest that is separate and distinct (Morale v. Grigel, 1976) from that of criminal law in order to be deemed a reasonable search.Warrantless Searches Courts have held that, in general, searches done without a warrant are allowed under the Fourth Amendment in a few narrowly constructed circumstances: exigent circumstances, a search incident to a lawful arrest, plain view doctrine, and consent (OLeary, Lapp, & Wintner, 2009). Exigent circumstances are present when the immediate risk of harm makes obtaining a proper warrant impossible. While there is not much case law examines this circumstance under the lens of university residence halls, it can be reasonably assumed that universities may use this circumstance as a means to enter student rooms if there is an immediate risk to the student or the community. In addition to exigent circumstances, warrantless searches are also allowed if they result from a lawful arrest. In other words, if a student is arrested, the police can search their room for evidence pertaining to the crime. While these first two circumstances are not widely argued in the courts (for residence hall searches), they must still be considered with drafting policies and procedures for room inspections. The last two circumstances (plain view and consent) are the circumstances that most appear in case law (consent will be discussed later). The plain view doctrine gives law enforcement officials the ability to seize property that is incriminating evidence when the property is in plain view of where the officer has the right to be (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). This doctrine was challenged in the Massachusetts Supreme Court case of Commonwealth v. Neilson (243 Mass. 75, 1996). In Commonwealth, the university officials at Fitchburg State College entered Eric Neilsons room to search for a cat that was suspected of being in the room during a health and safety inspection. Upon inspection, the university officials opened Neilsons closet because they suspected a possible fire hazard. When they opened the closet, university officials found marijuana plants, fertilizer, lights, and other items used for marijuana cultivation and use. Upon finding the plants, the university officials called the campus police, who documented the findings and removed all of the drug paraphernalia from the room without a warrant. The court in Commonwealth found that while the initial health and safety inspection by the university officials was not a violation of Neilsons Fourth Amendment rights, the warrantless entry into Neilsons room and subsequent seizure of his property (although illegal) violated his constitutionally protected rights. Arguing that the university officials presence in the room was by consent and the drugs were in plain view, the university argued that the officers warrantless entry was proper. The court disagreed citing that the police were not in a place where the officer has a right to be (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 458) when they made their plain view observations (Commonwealth v. Neilson, 1996) of the room.Possible ConsequencesCommonwealth also highlights the consequences institutions may face if they do not uphold a students Fourth Amendment rights. Since the university in Commonwealth was found to not properly obtain a search warrant for the items confiscated, the court suppressed the evidence that was collected from the search. It is important to note that the suppression of evidence usually applies to trial proceedings where the university or state is seeking to prosecute student for possession of illicit substances. At many private institutions, specifically Loyola, law enforcement officials are rarely involved in residence hall searches, as the students are held responsible under the universitys code of conduct.In addition to the suppression of evidence, university officials may be found responsible under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Section 1983 explains: any person, acting under color of state law, who deprives another of his or her rights under federal law, is liable to that person (Love, 2015). Courts have upheld the liability of university officials at public institutions to be held liable under Section 1983 if they deprive students of their rights. The court in Smyth v. Lubbers (398 F.Supp. 777, 1975) furthered this interpretation to be applicable to university officials who violate a students Fourth Amendment rights. The five plaintiffs in this case resided in the residence halls at Grand Valley State College in Michigan whose rooms were searched without warrants. During the search, marijuana was discovered and two students were suspended from the school. The students sought injunctive relief from the court because they alleged that the university officials acted under the color of state law and are liable under Section 1983. The court agreed in this case asserting: [i]f a person acts under color of law, it is irrelevant whether the official was acting within or without the scope of his employment by common law standards (Smyth v. Lubbers, 1975). The important takeaway from the Smyth decision is that both the university and its officials (in their individual capacities) can be held liable if they conduct an improper search that violates a students Fourth Amendment rights. While this statute may apply most broadly to public institutions, officials at private institutions may also be held liable under Section 1983 if they act as a state actor under the color of state law (see Gonzaga v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 2002).Housing ContractsFor both public and private institutions, students enter into contracts with both the school and, if applicable, with the department in charge of on campus housing. In various court cases, the courts have established that the relationship between students who live on campus and the university as similar to that of an apartment or hotel room. Piazzola v. Watkins (442 F.2d 284, 1971), the courts (citing Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 1970) argued that students rent their room for a certain period of time (lessees) and agree to abide by the rules established by the university (lessor). While students may enjoy many of the Fourth Amendment considerations above, the contracts that they may enter into may restrict some of these rights. The role of contracts, specifically for student housing, have been contested widely in the courts, most notably through Piazzola and Devers v Southern (712 So.2d 199, 1998). Even though both of the cases are applicable to the Fifth Circuit, they have both been widely cited when courts examine the various challenges to an institutions housing policies.In Piazzola, two witnesses told the Chief of Police at Troy State University that there was marijuana present in the residence halls at the university. The Chief of Police notified the Dean of Men, who gave permission for the police to enter the students rooms. Prior to the search, the students were not advised about the entry into their room (no consent given) and warrants were not obtained because the university believed it had probable cause under its housing contract. The universitys regulations, that were known by and agreed upon by the students in the case, stated: The college reserves the right to enter rooms for inspection purposes. If the administration deems it necessary, the room may be searched and the occupant required to open his personal baggage and any other personal material which is sealed (Piazzola v. Watkins, 1971). During the first room inspection, drugs were not found. However, during a second inspection (without notice) marijuana was found and the students were arrested and brought up on criminal drug charges. Even though the university claimed that they had the right to conduct the search, the courts disagreed. Specifically, the Piazzola court argued that the universitys regulation could not be applied to broadly give consent to search for evidence that leads to a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the policy showed an unconstitutional attempt to require a student to waive his protection from unreasonable searches and seizures as a condition to his occupancy of a college dormitory room (Piazzola v. Watkins, 1971). While the policy was in place to give the university the power to search the students spaces, the court challenged the broad scope of the regulation. In order for universities to create and enforce policies that allow the search and seizure of a students property, the courts have remained firm on the need for institutions to avoid creating a broad policy. Rather, the policy should be narrowly tailored and be specific in the circumstances where a students space will be entered without their permission. This was further challenged in Devers v. Southern.In Devers, a student at Southern University was arrested following the discovery of marijuana in his residence hall room. The discovery was made during a dormitory sweep policy authorized by Southerns housing agreement: The University reserves all rights in connection with assignments of rooms, inspection of rooms with police, and the termination of room occupancy (Devers v. Southern, 1998). Upon finding the marijuana in the room, the student was expelled from the university. The clear difference in Devers is the extremely broad scope that Southerns agreement gives to university personnel and the police to search a students space without a warrant. The court declared the policy prima facie unconstitutional as it violated his Fourth Amendment rights as a student living on campus. Additionally, the court ruled that there is no set of circumstances under which the regulation would be valid (Devers v. Southern, 1998). Since students do not waive their rights when they enter a university, institutions must balance the need to search against the invasion in which the search entails in order for the search to be deemed reasonable. In this case, the courts balanced the need of the university to generally search rooms for drugs and weapons over the invasive nature of the police search. Obviously, they court ruled that the nature of the search outweighed the need for the search to occur, but there have been other times where the courts have allowed universities to enter residence hall rooms without a properly issued warrant, namely health and safety inspections. The courts have been consistent in many cases (Commonwealth, Devers, Piazzola, etc.) and allowed universities to conduct health and safety inspections if clearly outlined in the housing contract or student policies. As Piazzola and Devers illustrate, universities (both public and private) must be careful when crafting their policies that govern the institutions policies on search and seizure. In general, if universities are reserving the right to enter a space without a warrant, the policy must be narrowly tailored so that students and administrators are aware of the circumstances that would result in a room inspection. While a housing contract may provide some type of consent for administrative searches, the courts have argued against warrantless searches when they are conducted to gather evidence for a criminal investigation. Even though most of the cases explained above relate to students at public institutions, private institutions should still heed the advice of the courts when crafting search policies for residents. Search and Seizure Policies in PracticeUniversities have the power to create policies and procedures that further the educational mission and environment for students. Almost all public and private institutions have stipulations in their student or housing policies that allow university officials to enter student rooms for various reasons. As Piazzola and Devers illustrated, universities must be careful and narrowly tailor their policies. In an effort to combat the increased drug use on Loyolas campus, it is important to examine the policies at peer and aspirational institutions in order to weigh the alternatives to Loyolas current approach. While all of the institutions profiled are private institutions (Loyola, Illinois Institute of Technology, Northwestern, and Marquette), they each approach room searches differently and can provide the framework for making recommendations for the improvement of Loyolas current policy structure.Loyola University ChicagoLoyolas current room entry policy, as outlined in the Community Standards (2015), the University reserves the right to allow authorized personnel to enter student rooms and will make a reasonable attempt to protect the students privacy (p. 25). While university officials have the right to confiscate items in violation of federal, state, local, or university polices, an effort must be made to have students present at the time of the search. If that does not happen, students will be advised if the search resulted in any violations or confiscation of items. In most cases, Residence Life professionals (including Resident Assistants) enter rooms for routine health and safety inspections, where students are made aware of the inspections at least a week in advance. In practice, Residence Life professional staff will conduct room searches outside of health and safety inspections if there is reason to believe that a policy violation is occurring or the health and safety of the student or community is at risk. These searches are conducted with the approval of a Residence Life leadership team member and are usually in tandem with another professional or student staff member. In the circumstances where drugs or drug paraphernalia are found in a residents room, the items will be documented and handed over to Campus Safety officers, who are sworn police officers in the State of Illinois. Where there are some circumstances where students could be prosecuted criminally, students are usually held responsible for their actions through the conduct system. This choice allows university officials to have developmental conversations with students and make attempts to have students reflect on their actions that led them to violate university policies. The universitys drug policy is firm: Possession, use, transfer, distribution, manufacture, or sale of illicit drugs is prohibited (Community Standards, 2015, p. 14). Violators of the policy will be assigned sanctions according to the sanctioning guidelines outlined in the Community Standards. For most offenses, students can receive a $50-100 fine, 10-20 service hours, parental notification (if the student is under 21) and an educational sanction (future offenses increase in magnitude). While the sanctioning guidelines are set in the Community Standards, sanctioning can depend on the circumstances and the discretion of the conduct officer. This could lead to inconsistent sanctioning and/or sanctions that fail to prevent further offenses.Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)Similar to the room entry policy at Loyola, IITs room inspection, entry, and search policy grants:Students only such limited privacy in their rooms as may be consistent with the basic responsibilities of IIT to fulfill its educational functions and to conduct its day-to-day operations. Student acknowledges that these responsibilities require IIT to have a reasonable right to enter Students room to assure proper upkeep, confirm occupancy, to provide for the health and safety of Student and/or other students, and/or to investigate, when reasonable suspicion exists, possible violations of law or IIT regulations occurring therein. (2014-2015 Room & Board Contract Terms, 2014). What is notable about this policy is IITs explanation of the privacy rights that students enjoy as a result of living on campus. As has been mentioned before, institutions retain the right to create policies that further the educational environment for their students. IIT is clear that they have the right to search student rooms as long as the search allows the university to maintain its educational functions. Using the balancing analysis from Devers, IITs policy allows for university officials to broadly conduct searches when the educational environment is threatened. Specifically for drug-related searches, the university has the right to conduct a search since there may be possible violations of university or state law.If found to be in possession or using illegal drugs in the IIT residence halls, the student code of conduct explains that the students housing contract is immediately cancelled and they are required to move out in 72 hours (Policies, Regulations, and Procedures, 2014). While this policy may seem harsh, IIT continues to investigate only five drug-related cases every academic year (A. Schipma, personal communication, April 7, 2015). This type of policy, however, can raise issues related to the issue of cancelling a students housing contract with short notice. IITs policy is clear on their website and in the housing contract, which gives the university the authority to enforce the policy. However, the responsibility falls on the residence life staff and conduct administrators to ensure that students are given due process in the decision to cancel their housing contract. From the perspective of student learning, ending contracts may create a sanction for drug-related behavior, however, it may be a lost opportunity for student affairs professionals to have a developmental conversation with students. While not clear in the policy, IIT also reserves the right in their student code of conduct to contact the Chicago Police Department for assistance with respect to the violation of any Illinois law (Policies, Regulations, and Procedures, 2014). While this also may be another important tactic to cut down on drug-related incidents at IIT, the university will also have to be careful to gather the proper consent or documentation to perform a search in a students space, if the police are involved and the search is intended to find evidence for a criminal investigation.

Northwestern UniversityEven though Northwestern is a private institution, it does not perform searches without prior consent from the resident of the room or a search warrant. Specifically for drug-related offenses the student code of conduct explains:The University Police Department will investigate whenever it has reason to believe illegal drugs are being sold or used on the campus. The department, pursuant to University policy, will make arrests of any individuals on campus or in the adjacent neighborhood under jurisdiction of University Police when it has sufficient evidence of violations of any applicable drug laws. Normal circumstances under which the department will make arrests for drug abuse are upon direct firsthand knowledge of a law violation taking place, upon the signed complaint of an individual, or upon sufficient evidence of law violation to obtain a search warrant. (Northwestern University Student Handbook 2014-2015, 2014, p.55).From what can be gleaned from the student handbook, Northwestern hopes to combat drug use on campus by involving the police when there is a possible drug violation. While the student handbook is not clear about the specific consequences for drug use or possession, students may face interim suspension as a result of being found with drug-related items. Similar to the policy at IIT, Northwesterns policy seems to be a way to cut down on drug-related incidents by increasing the magnitude of sanctioning. To fulfill the recommendations for housing contracts, the university does a good job of explicitly outlining the role of various university officials in room searches and drug-related cases. Since the courts will look to the university policies to see if the university officials or campus police were acting under the color of state law, their approach would make it clear for the court to make the distinction between a state actor and a university staff member in their official capacity.Marquette UniversityOf the more specific of the policies explored in this case study, Marquettes room entry procedures are clearly outlined in their housing contract. Specifically, Marquettes housing contracts allows authorized university personnel to enter and search a residence hall room (including RAs, Department of Public Safety, and maintenance) if there are imminent hazards to the property or students (exigent circumstances), violation of policy or law, or if contraband items are present but concealed from view (Policies and Procedures, n.d.). In this last circumstance, university staff will knock and identify themselves. If there is not an answer, the students room will be searched for contraband in plain-view. If a search is necessary, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) will perform the search, with the preference that the student is present during the search, however the students need not give permission to search (Policies and Procedures, n.d.). If the students do not consent to the search or are not present, DPS will continue with the search and leave notice of the search and/or any items confiscated from the room. While this policy gives a great amount of flexibility to the university to conduct a search for drug-related items, the universitys findings would most likely not be admissible in court. The policy may be sound, but it may close off an option for the university to pursue any future legal action. The university does state that drug-related incidents could result in expulsion, which may be the maximum level of sanctioning the university wants to provide.Specifically for drug-related incidents, Marquette has established mandatory minimums for policy violations. Much like Loyola, Marquette uses three categories of violations. However, the mandatory sanction for a students first drug-related offense is a $100 fine and University Probation. Any further offenses will result in a $200 fine and suspension. This structure is an interesting combination of offering some time for student development and reflection, while enforcing a serious sanction for students who violate the drug policy.RecommendationsWhile Loyolas policy would match the tests put forth by the courts, there are areas where the room search and drug policies can help to cut down on drug-related offenses at the institution. Given that Loyolas Campus Safety department acts as a state actor in their capacity as sworn police officers in Illinois, involvement with campus safety in room searches may provide a barrier to conducting searches when the only cause is the smell of marijuana (which is most of the cases). Additionally, it may not be in the universitys best interest to charge students criminally, when it may take a good amount of time for their case to be heard. Rather than involving Campus Safety for every search, Loyola should consider updating its policies to establish the specific roles and procedures in a room search for drug-related items. Specifically, the university should think about if there are times where we would like to involve Campus Safety officers when there is a large quantity of drugs or when repeated offenses have been identified. The courts would look to Loyolas policies if challenged to determine what the role of university officials when responding to drug-related cases (A/RDs, RAs, Campus Safety, etc.). Similar to Northwestern and Marquettes policy, this policy addition can be added specifically to the drug policy in the student handbook. Additionally, the university would need to train Residence Life staff to ensure that protocol is followed when drugs are involved in the case.Perhaps more important to reducing drug-related incidents on campus, the Office of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution (OSCCR) should consider enforcing mandatory minimum sanctioning. Since Loyolas current model lends itself to flexible sanctioning depending on an individual students circumstances, the university could start to cut down on cases and repeat offenders if there are more serious sanctions placed for drug-related cases. Loyola would have to overcome a learning curve with students that can be reduced if proactive during orientation and publicity in the residential facilities. If the new policy adopts Marquettes structure, Loyolas conduct administrators could have students to sign an action plan or agreement that outlines future consequences if they continue to violate drug-related policies. This could aid in having a conversation with students about future goals that they can enact to prevent future offenses and continued reflection. Legally, this would allow the university to document that the consequences of future drug-related violations were clearly stated (much like the students rights form) and can be a legally-binding agreement if the student questions a decision for suspension or expulsion. Especially as a Jesuit institution, Loyola has an interest in aiding in the development of the individual student. It would not be in Loyolas interest to immediately suspend students or end their housing contracts, however the increase of drug-related violations warrants a response that can help to cut down on student drug use. The courts have upheld a private universitys ability to have a conduct system and sanction students. However, universities must be mindful that they dont take away their students constitutional rights when they attend the institution. Even though Loyola is able to perform room searches under a different level of scrutiny than public universities, it should not be in the business of creating a hostile environment by violating the constitutionally protected rights of its students.

References20142015 Room & Board Contract Terms. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from https://web.iit.edu/sites/web/files/departments/housing/pdfs/HousingContractTerms2014-15.pdfCommonwealth v. Neilson, 243 Mass. 75 (1996).Devers v Southern, 712 So.2d 199 (1998).Kaplin, W., & Lee, B. (2014). The Law of Higher Education, Student Version (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Loyola University Chicago Community Standards 2014-2015. (2015, January 26). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/osccr/pdfs/LUC COMMUNITY STANDARDS 2014-2015_updated Spring 2015.pdfLove, T. (2015). Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 [Class handout]. Chicago, IL: Loyola University Chicago.Morale v. Grigel, 422 F. Supp. 988 (1976).Northwestern University Student Handbook 201415. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.northwestern.edu/student-conduct/shared-assets/studenthandbook.pdfO'Leary, K., Lapp, D., & Wintner, T. (2009). Whose Room is it Anyway? Lawful Entry and Search of Student Dormitory Rooms. NACUANotes, 7(3).Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284 (1971).Policies and Procedures. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.marquette.edu/orl/policies/index.shtml#housingagreement.Policies and Procedures - Drug Policy. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.marquette.edu/osd/policies/drug_policy.shtml#sanctions.Policies, Regulations, and Procedures. (2014). Retrieved April 9, 2015, from https://web.iit.edu/student-affairs/handbook/fine-print/policies-regulations-and-procedures.Smyth v. Lubbers, 398 F.Supp. 777 (1975).Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).Wadley, J., & Carlier, C. (2014, September 8). College students' use of marijuana on the rise, some drugs declining. Michigan News. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22362-college-students-use-of-marijuana-on-the-rise-some-drugs-declining.