Medlock v. Trs. of Ind. Univ.

Decision Date30 December 2013
Docket NumberNo. 13–1900.,13–1900.
Citation738 F.3d 867
PartiesZachary MEDLOCK, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Ronald W. Frazier, Attorney, Frazier Law Firm, Indianapolis, IN, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Trenten D. Klingerman, Attorney, Stuart & Branigin LLP, Lafayette, IN, John M. Stuckey, Attorney, Stuart & Branigin, Indianapolis, IN, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before POSNER, FLAUM, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

This is an eye-opening case, but not because of any legal profundities or political reverberations—rather because of the glimpse it affords into contemporary student and administrative cultures of American universities.

Zachary Medlock was in the spring of 2011 a sophomore at Indiana University's main campus, in Bloomington, living by choice in a university dormitory. As a condition of being allowed to live there he was required to agree to comply with a long list of rules, one of which was that he allow health and safety inspections of his dorm room by “resident leadership specialists” (we'll call them “student inspectors”). They are graduate students employed part-time by the university to assist in dormitory management. Their duties include conducting the inspections. The students whose rooms are to be inspected must be given written notification of the inspection at least 24 hours in advance; Medlock had been given a week's notice by email and in addition the inspection of the dorm rooms on his floor was announced over the building's intercom on the day of the inspection. (His failure to use the abundant warning time to clean up his act is one of the mysteries of this case.) The inspectors inspect for violations of prohibitions in the code of conduct for dormitory residents. Those prohibitions are numerous—“from candles to cats” as one of the student inspectors testified—and of course include (illegal) drugs. Medlock does not question that he was subject to these prohibitions as a condition of being allowed to live in a university dormitory, and was subject to being penalized for violating them. Suspension and expulsion are among the authorized penalties.

At about 4 p.m. on the day scheduled for the inspection, one of the student inspectors entered Medlock's room (Medlock wasn't there) to inspect it, and upon entering noticed a clear plastic tube lying on the desk. Drawing on the training the university had given him to enable him to conduct a competent inspection, he surmised that the tube contained marijuana. Another student inspector, whom the first one asked to join him in Medlock's room, concurred.

One of the student inspectors called the Indiana University Police Department to report what they thought they'd discovered in Medlock's room. Like other large universities Indiana University has its own police department. It's a real police department—its police officers (of whom there are more than 40 on the Bloomington campus) have the same powers as police officers employed by cities and towns.

An Indiana University police officer (defendant Christopher King), summoned by one of the two student inspectors, arrived in Medlock's room, looked at the tube of marijuana, smelled raw marijuana, and left with the tube. The student inspectors remained, continuing their inspection and noticing burned candles, an ashtray containing ashes, and a rolled-up blanket at the bottom of the door to the bathroom, presumably intended to keep smoke from wafting into the bathroom (which Medlock shared with another student) while he smoked marijuana in his bedroom. Smoking of any kind is forbidden in the dormitory, as is possessing “open flame materials,” such as candles.

One of the student inspectors noticed that the door to Medlock's closet was ajar, and peering through the opening he saw what he thought was a large marijuana plant. He summoned officer King, who looked in the closet and found himself face to face with a six-foot-high marijuana plant. He left to get a warrant to search the room for drugs and drug paraphernalia but posted another police officer in the room to make sure no one moved or destroyed anything that might be contraband.

The warrant was issued and the further search that King conducted pursuant to it revealed both paraphernalia commonly used in relation to marijuana—four conventional pipes, two bongs (water pipes), and a fluorescent light (called a “grow light”) for enabling a large marijuana plant to thrive in a closet—plus a total of 89 grams of marijuana (not including the plant itself, doubtless the source of the 89 grams). Not that the plant was thriving, despite its height; a closet is not the optimal environment for a tall plant.

Medlock was arrested and charged with possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana, a felony (he could also have been charged with manufacturing marijuana, also a felony). But for unexplained reasons the charges were dropped, although there can't have been any doubt of his guilt.

The university's dean of students immediately suspended Medlock for one year. But Medlock had a hearing before a university hearing commission 17 days later (spring break had intervened—otherwise the interval would have been only 9 or 10 days). The hearing commission affirmed the suspension (as did the university's provost, to whom Medlock appealed the commission's decision) and ordered him to vacate the dormitory forthwith. Although called a “suspension,” this was more like an expulsion, because if he wanted to be reinstated he had to apply, after the year was up, and there was no guarantee that the application would be accepted. He applied for and was offered immediate admission to George Mason University, in Virginia (apparently without telling George Mason of the expulsion), but declined. Instead, after the year was up, he applied for readmission to IU at Bloomington. His application was granted, and he was readmitted when the school year began and was even given a part-time job by the university, on its information technology staff—which seems odd, as it might give him access to the confidential record of his expulsion.

The suit is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes suits against state or local officials who violate federally protected civil rights. The complaint names the university's trustees as defendants along with the dean of students, the university provost, the two student inspectors who searched Medlock's room, and officer King. It seeks a mandatory injunction ordering destruction of the record of his expulsion, and damages from the two student inspectors and King.

The litigation has attracted media attention. See, e.g., Dave Stafford, “7th Circuit Tosses IU Dorm–Search Lawsuit,” Indiana Lawyer, June 29, 2012, www. theindiana lawyer. com/ 7 th- circuit- tosses- iu- dormsearch- lawsuit/ PARAMS/ article/ 29121 (visited Dec. 28, 2013). Stafford's article refers to an earlier stage in the litigation, when we dismissed as moot Medlock's appeal from the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the one-year suspension; the appeal was moot because the year was up, and so the injunction could have no effect. Medlock v. Trustees of Indiana University, 683 F.3d 880, 882 (7th Cir.2012).

Medlock claims that the student inspectors plus King violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search. He also complains about not having been given a hearing before he was expelled, and we'll start there. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all charges.

Medlock argues that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment entitled him to such a hearing (that is, to a “predeprivation hearing”). He is not seeking damages for that alleged denial of due process of law, but the denial if proved would be a ground for the expungement of the record of his expulsion, which is relief that he does seek.

There is no merit to the due process claim. The in-your-face flagrancy of Medlock's violation of university rules (he had plenty of warning of the impending inspection, remember), 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. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581–83, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975).

And even if—as we don't for a moment believe—the failure to give him a hearing before he was expelled denied him due process of law, we can't understand how the destruction of the record of his expulsion could be thought a proper remedy. It's not as if there's any doubt about his having violated not only the university's rules but also Indiana's criminal law. We have said and we repeat that we are reluctant to encourage further bureaucratization by judicializing university disciplinary proceedings, mindful also that one dimension of academic freedom is the right of academic institutions to operate free of heavy-handed governmental, including judicial, interference.” Osteen v. Henley, 13 F.3d 221, 225–26 (7th Cir.1993).

Indiana University is a public university, owned by the State of Indiana, and the student inspectors and university police are university employees and therefore state actors. (We can't understand the defendants' argument, accepted by the district judge, that they were not state actors.) And so they can be sued under section 1983 for violating the Fourth Amendment, held applicable to state action by interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the exclusionary rule—the rule that renders evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment inadmissible in (some) judicial proceedings—is applicable only to criminal proceedings. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363–64, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998); INS v. Lopez–Mendoza, 468...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 18, 2021
    ...with due process, certain rights to life, liberty, and property. Indiana University is a state actor, Medlock v. Trustees of Ind. Univ. , 738 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 2013), so the Fourteenth Amendment also applies to it. As interpreted, the Fourteenth Amendment has both substantive and proc......
  • Doe v. Purdue Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • November 15, 2017
    ...addressed the question of whether the student was denied due process, answering the question emphatically in the negative. 738 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 2013).4 Other than an almost identical allegation of causation in Paragraph 150 in Count IV, there are no other references in the Complaint ......
  • Trs. of Ind. Univ. v. Curry
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 14, 2019
    ...and is a state actor for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and other constitutional provisions. See Medlock v. Trustees of Indiana University , 738 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 2013) ; Power v. Summers , 226 F.3d 815, 818 (7th Cir. 2000). But Indiana law does not always treat the university a......
  • State v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 7, 2017
    ...face to face with a six-foot-high marijuana plant ... left to get a warrant to search the room for drugs and drug paraphernalia[.]" Medlock , 738 F.3d at 870. In each case, the officers maintained the status quo while law enforcement secured a search warrant in good faith. See, e.g., Segura......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT