The Supreme Court of New Hampshire ruled that there was not a "sufficient relationship" between the Dartmouth campus police and the Hanover Police Department for the constitutional protections to apply to a student's room. It found that the campus police had acted independently of law enforcement officials and that the search was thus legal.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the ruling came in a case involving a student, Adam Nesmer, who was charged with marijuana possession after campus police officers found illegal drugs during a search of his dorm room. The counsel for the student argued that the search had violated the student's protection against improper searches and seizures, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The student alleged that all charges should be dismissed because the evidence was gathered improperly. The court disagreed.
The crux of the case depended on whether or not campus police officers were agents of the state simply because they regularly cooperate with local police officers, according to the Chronicle. This is an important distinction because searches by private officials on private property are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
"I am very surprised by that ruling. I don't think that would ever be the practice here at Amherst," said Acting Dean of Students Charri Boykin-East.
Some students said they disagreed with the decision. "There are certain constitutional rights that we as Americans have which should not be superseded by state law," said Jacqueline Koypt '04.
According to Chief of Campus Police John Carter, "a similar appeal in Massachusetts probably would have failed." Campus police officers in Massachusetts are sworn in by the state whereas there is no similar legislation in N.H.
While the College's police officers are employed by the College, they are effectively agents of the state. "The Massachusetts Supreme Court would have found unwarranted searches to be a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments," said Carter. "The Massachusetts court would have looked more strictly on how this infringed on someone's privacy."
"My opinion is that here at Amherst, regardless of the stature of the police as agents of the state, we would not infringe upon people's protections under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments," said Carter, "If you are going to intrude on someone's privacy, you need an articulated reason and sufficient cause. Everything needs a system of checks and balances."
"If a campus police officer needs to go into a student's room and something illegal is in plain view, then they would confiscate the material," said Boykin-East. "But they would not be authorized to go through student's drawers without a search warrant."
One of the justifications for the search at Dartmouth College was an implied agreement between the student and the college. The Chronicle reported that Ann M. Rice, the N.H. associate attorney general who argued that case for the state said, "If a student has agreed to living in the conditions of a dorm, then basically students have agreed to that kind of a search."
Campus police at the College will only search through a student's room if that student is forewarned, which is the case with routine safety checks during holiday break, or if they are called in for a disturbance. Otherwise, they will only conduct a search when they have an articulated reason to believe that drugs are present, have a legal reason to be in the room, have a search warrant, or are concerned with issues of officer safety.
"If we were to move to a policy of unwarranted searches, that would necessitate broader conversations with the campus community," said Boykin-East.
"Amherst is committed to protecting the privacy of individuals and [the campus police] would not infringe upon people's privacy even if we were given that power," said Carter.