State v. Rodriguez
2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 569
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Two Howard Payne University (HPU) RAs inspected a vacant dorm room pursuant to the housing agreement and found suspected marijuana, pills, and paraphernalia; they photographed items and alerted the resident director.
- The resident director summoned an HPU officer (plainclothes with badge), who entered the room, observed and photographed the items, then contacted city detectives; no warrant was obtained and no exigency was claimed.
- When one roommate returned, officers spoke to her and later to Rodriguez; after Miranda warnings Rodriguez admitted ownership of the seized items and was indicted for possession.
- Rodriguez moved to suppress; the trial court granted suppression. The court of appeals affirmed, holding dorm rooms are homes for Fourth Amendment purposes and police entry was a search.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and affirmed: it held the police entry/search was a Fourth Amendment search and was not justified by any exception (private-party search, special needs, plain view, or valid consent/apparent authority).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (State/HPU) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police entry into dorm room constituted a Fourth Amendment search | Entry by officers into a student’s dorm room is a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected home and thus a search | Police entry merely duplicated a prior lawful private (HPU) inspection and thus did not create a new Fourth Amendment intrusion | Yes — the officers’ physical entry was a search; Rodriguez retained an expectation of privacy |
| Whether prior private (university) search vitiated Rodriguez’s privacy rights (private-party-search doctrine) | University RAs’ inspection did not extinguish the student’s expectation of privacy in the dorm such that police could lawfully enter without a warrant | The private search frustrated the expectation of privacy so police could rely on what private actors discovered | No — the Court declined to extend Jacobsen to residences; private search did not relieve police of warrant requirement |
| Whether the special-needs (school-search) exception justified warrantless law-enforcement entry | University inspection authority does not authorize police to enter dorms for crime investigation; students at universities are not like compulsory-school minors for T.L.O. purposes | University’s health/safety inspection regime and campus policing create a special-needs context that permits administrative searches without warrants | No — special-needs does not justify law-enforcement searches aimed at criminal evidence in a university dormitory in these circumstances |
| Whether consent or apparent/actual authority of university official permitted police entry or plain-view seizure | No HPU official had actual or apparent authority to consent to a police search of a student’s room; housing rules do not equate to authority to invite police for criminal investigations | Resident director’s actions and the housing contract (and handbook) gave HPU personnel authority to enter and cooperate with police; their invitation conveyed consent/apparent authority | No — no proof HPU official had actual or objectively reasonable apparent authority to consent to police entry; plain-view seizure invalid because entry was not lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (physical intrusion on a constitutionally protected area is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (scope of subsequent government intrusion is measured by how it exceeded a prior private search)
- Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent is valid when the third party has common authority over the premises)
- Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921) (Fourth Amendment constraints apply only to government agents, not private actors)
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (special-needs/administrative-school-search principles and reasonableness standard for school officials)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent authority permits warrantless searches when officer reasonably believes third party can consent)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (one co-tenant’s consent cannot overcome another co-tenant’s present refusal)
- Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (administrative inspections intrude on Fourth Amendment interests and generally require warrants)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (privacy-based test for searches and limits on government investigatory intrusion into homes)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (searches that obtain information about the interior of a home implicate Fourth Amendment protection)