Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State Univ.
Decision Date | 14 May 1968 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2670-N. |
Citation | 284 F. Supp. 725 |
Parties | Gregory Gordon MOORE, Plaintiff, v. The STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF TROY STATE UNIVERSITY, Annette Gibbs, Chairman, R. W. Williford, Laureson Forrester, Sandra Martin, Martha Wingard, James Frank O'Neal, and Maurice McCord, all as members of the said committee and all of Troy State University, Troy, Alabama, Troy State University, Ralph W. Adams, President of Troy State University, Troy, Alabama, and Troy State College Board of Trustees, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
George W. Dean, Jr., and Morris S. Dees, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., and Charles Morgan, Jr., and Reber Boult, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Leslie Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., for defendants.
On February 28, 1968, plaintiff, Gregory Gordon Moore, was a student in good standing at Troy State University and resided in a dormitory on the campus which he rented from the school. A search of his room on that day, conducted by the Dean of Men and two agents of the State of Alabama Health Department, Bureau of Primary Prevention, in plaintiff's presence, revealed a substance which, upon analysis, proved to be marijuana. Following a hearing on March 27, 1968, by the Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University, plaintiff was "indefinitely suspended" from that institution on March 28.
This action was commenced on March 30, 1968, seeking reinstatement of plaintiff as a student in good standing. At a hearing in this court conducted on April 26, 1968, it was determined that plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies at Troy State University and that he "was denied his right to procedural due process of law in the hearing conducted at Troy State University on March 27, 1968, as a result of which he was indefinitely suspended." On motion of the defendants, jurisdiction of this cause was retained pending remand to the Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University for the purpose of conducting a hearing comporting with procedural due process of law. Pending those proceedings, plaintiff was ordered reinstated.
On May 1, 1968, a second hearing was held before the Student Affairs Committee and plaintiff was again indefinitely suspended. He again challenges, from a procedural point of view, the action taken in suspending him. He does not challenge the underlying substantive basis for the action of the Student Affairs Committee. If plaintiff while a student possessed marijuana in a dormitory on campus in violation of state law,1 then indefinite suspension from his status as a student is clearly justified.
Plaintiff now seeks relief in this court. First, he seeks readmission as a student at Troy State University on the ground of denial of procedural due process in the proceedings which resulted in his suspension; second, he seeks a declaratory judgment that none of the evidence seized in the search of his room "may be admitted in any criminal proceedings * * *"; and third, he alleges the admission in the University's hearing of the evidence obtained through a search of his dormitory room violates his Fourth Amendment rights prohibiting illegal search and seizure. The second part of the relief sought is clearly unavailable.2
On the morning of February 28, 1968, the Dean of Men of Troy State University was called to the office of the Chief of Police of Troy, Alabama, where a conference was held regarding "the possibility of there being marijuana on the campus." Two narcotics agents, the Chief of Police, and two students were present. A second meeting was held later that morning at which a list was procured of the names of students whose rooms the officers desired permission to search. This information came from unnamed but reliable informers.3 About 1 p. m., the officers received additional information that some of the subjects they were interested in were packing to leave the campus for a break following the end of an examination period. Upon receipt of this information, and fearing a "leak," two narcotics agents, accompanied by the Dean of Men, searched six dormitory rooms in two separate residence halls. The search of the room which plaintiff occupied alone occurred between approximately 2:30 and 2:45 p. m., in his presence, but without his permission.
At the second hearing before the Student Affairs Committee, the following stipulation was entered concerning the search:
The search revealed a matchbox containing a small amount of vegetable matter, which a state toxicologist who examined it testified was marijuana. All this testimony was received over plaintiff's objection that the evidence was seized as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also challenges the constitutionality, facially and as applied, of the regulation under which the search was conducted.
This Court has previously expressed itself on the question of campus regulations, and the duty of school administrations to maintain order and discipline on their campuses in an environment suited to education, in Dickey v. Alabama State Board of Education, 273 F.Supp. 613, 617-618 (M.D.Ala.1967):
Emphasis added.
The leading case on this point is Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961). That case held that "due process requires notice and some opportunity for hearing before students at a tax-supported college are expelled for misconduct." But at the same time the Court in Dixon recognized the paramount duty and responsibility of educational authorities to maintain an atmosphere on campus which is conducive to the educational function. In discussing the nature of the hearing required by due process, the Court stated that the nature of the hearing would vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and that the "interests of the college" in preserving an "educational atmosphere" are to be balanced against the student's rights to due process. See Burnside v. Byars, 363 F. 2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966); Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education, 363 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1966); Due v. Florida A. & M. University, 233 F.Supp. 396 (N.D.Fla.1963).
College students who reside in dormitories have a special relationship with the college involved. Insofar as the Fourth Amendment affects that relationship, it does not depend on either a general theory of the right of privacy4 or on traditional property concepts.5 The college does not stand, strictly speaking, in loco parentis to its students, nor is their relationship purely contractual in the traditional sense.6 The relationship grows out of the peculiar and sometimes the seemingly competing interests of college and student. A student naturally has the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizures,7 and a tax-supported public college may not compel a "waiver" of that right as a condition precedent to admission.8 The college, on the other hand, has an "affirmative obligation"9 to promulgate and to enforce reasonable regulations designed to protect campus order and discipline and to promote an environment consistent with the educational process. The validity of the regulation authorizing search of dormitories thus does not depend on whether a student "waives" his right to Fourth Amendment protection or on whether he has "contracted" it away; rather, its validity is determined by whether the regulation is a reasonable exercise of the college's supervisory duty. In other words, if the regulation—or, in the absence of a regulation, the action of the college authorities—is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Young
...that it may infringe to some extent on the outer bounds of the Fourth Amendment rights of students.' Moore v. Student Affairs Comm. of Troy State U., 284 F.Supp. 725, 729 (M.D.Ala. 1968). It is true that unlike the citizen crossing the border, boarding the airplane or attending the Job Corp......
-
Allen v. Passaic County
... ... 653, 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976); Ewing v. State, 160 Ind.App. 138, 148, 310 N.E.2d 571, 577-578 ... of the warrantless search made of a student's purse. The Court noted the legitimate charge ... Referring to Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State Univ., ... ...
-
Bellnier v. Lund
...rights violation. Potts v. Wright, supra at 219; see also Picha v. Willgos, supra at 1220. In Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University, 284 F.Supp. 725 (M.D.Ala.1968), a case involving a dormitory room search at a state university, a balance was struck between the Fourth ......
-
State In Interest of T.L.O.
...it may infringe to some extent on the outer bounds of the Fourth Amendment rights of students. [Moore v. Student Affairs Comm. of Troy State University, 284 F.Supp. 725, 729 (M.D.Ala.1968) (footnotes omitted) We agree with that analysis and we too "reject as unsound the notion that ... [stu......