The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 44, No. 3 - 76

Richard Fossey

their dormitory room by campus police, and
thus the evidence the officers seized during a
warrantless search could not be used to prosecute the students for possession of illegal
drugs. in that case, three Boston College police
officers and two campus housing administrators went to a dormitory room occupied by
Daniel Carr and John sherman, prompted by
a tip from other students that Carr might have
a weapon in his room. one officer entered the
room, while the other two officers stood just
outside the door. the officer ordered a student
visitor to leave the room and then questioned
Carr and sherman. in response to the officer's questions about a possible weapon, Carr
produced a "fake" gun (a realistic copy of a
.45 caliber handgun) from under a bed, and
sherman turned over a folding knife. police
later found a smaller knife in the room and a
kubotan, a martial arts weapon.

Giving students advance notice

Based on concerns that other weapons
might be in the room, the officer asked for
permission to search the room. police gave
both students a printed form containing two
parts: a miranda waiver and a written consent
to search. Carr and sherman signed the
miranda waiver, but neither signed the consent-to-search portion of the form. police then
searched the room and found a bag of psilocybin mushrooms, a bag of marijuana, 10 marijuana cigarettes, and two bags of white powder
later identified as cocaine.

search and suppressed the evidence. an intermediate trial court reversed, but the massachusetts supreme Judicial Court agreed with the
trial court, ruling that Carr and sherman had
not consented voluntarily to the search.

Carr and sherman were prosecuted for trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana
and psilocybin with intent to distribute, and
they sought to suppress the evidence that officers seized during the warrantless search of
their dormitory room. a trial court ruled the
students had not voluntarily consented to the
76

before searching dormitory rooms
is an expression of courtesy . . .
and an indication that college
officials respect students' privacy .
In addition, college and university
officials may be more likely to
prevail in court when the legality
of a dormitory search is disputed if
they gave students advance notice
before entering dormitory rooms
without students' permission .

"When the police rely on consent to justify
a warrantless [search]...the prosecution has the
burden of proving that the consent was, in fact,
freely and voluntarily given," the massachusetts supreme Judicial Court ruled. "if either
the officer's request or the occupant's response
is so ambiguous that we are unable to discern
whether the occupant voluntarily consented to
[the search], our inquiry will be over and the
entry must be deemed unlawful" (p. 888).
in the court's opinion, the conversation
between police and the students did not clearly
show Carr and sherman had consented to the
search, and they had not given written per-

T h e J o u r n a l o f C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y St u d e n t H o u s i n g

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