Case Information
*1 Before P OSNER F LAUM S YKES Circuit Judges . P OSNER Circuit Judge
. This eye opening case, because legal profundities political reverbera tions—rather because glimpse affords into contem porary administrative cultures American universities.
Zachary spring sophomore Indiana University’s main campus, Bloomington, living *2 by choice in a university dormitory. As a condition of being allowed to live there he was required to agree to comply long list rules, one of was he allow health safety inspections his dorm by “resident leadership specialists” (we’ll call them “student inspectors”). They are graduate students employed part time the uni versity to assist in dormitory management. Their duties in clude conducting the inspections. students whose rooms are to inspected must be given written notification the inspection least hours in advance; Medlock given week’s notice email addition the inspec tion rooms on his floor announced over building’s intercom on day inspection. (His failure to use abundant warning time to clean up act one mysteries this case.) inspectors inspect for vio lations prohibitions code conduct dormitory residents. Those prohibitions are numerous—“from candles to cats” as one testified—and course include (illegal) drugs. does question he subject these prohibitions condition allowed live university dormitory, sub ject being penalized violating them. Suspension expulsion among authorized penalties.
At about p.m. on day scheduled inspection, one entered (Med lock wasn’t there) inspect it, upon entering noticed clear plastic tube lying desk. Drawing on training given enable him conduct competent inspection, surmised tube contained marijuana. Another inspector, whom first asked join room, concurred. *3 ‐
One the student inspectors called the Indiana Univer sity Police Department to report what they thought they’d discovered in Medlock’s room. Like large universities Indiana University has own police department. It’s real police department—its police officers (of whom there more than Bloomington campus) same powers as police officers employed cities and towns.
An Indiana University police officer (defendant Christo pher King), summoned one two inspectors, arrived in room, looked at tube marijuana, smelled raw marijuana, and left with tube. remained, continuing inspection notic burned candles, ashtray containing ashes, rolled up blanket bottom door to bathroom, presumably intended to keep smoke wafting into bathroom (which shared with another student) while he smoked marijuana in bedroom. Smoking kind forbidden dormitory, as possessing “open flame materials,” such candles.
One noticed door closet ajar, peering through opening saw what he thought large plant. He summoned officer King, who looked closet himself face face six foot high plant. left get warrant search drugs drug paraphernalia posted another officer make sure moved destroyed anything might contraband. warrant issued further
conducted pursuant revealed both paraphernalia com monly used relation marijuana—four conventional *4 1900 pipes, two bongs (water pipes), and a fluorescent light (called a “grow light”) for enabling a large plant thrive a closet—plus a total grams (not including plant itself, doubtless source grams). Not plant was thriving, despite its height; a closet optimal environment for a tall plant.
Medlock was arrested charged with possession more than grams marijuana, felony (he also have been charged manufacturing marijuana, also felony). But for unexplained reasons charges dropped, although there can’t have been doubt guilt. university’s dean students immediately sus
pended Medlock year. Medlock had hearing hearing commission days later (spring break intervened—otherwise interval would only days). hearing commission affirmed suspension (as did provost, whom appealed commission’s decision) ordered vacate dormitory forthwith. Although called “suspension,” this was more like expulsion, because he wanted reinstated he apply, after year was up, there was guarantee application would accepted. applied was offered immediate ad mission George Mason University, Virginia (apparently without telling George Mason expulsion), de clined. Instead, after year was up, he applied read mission IU Bloomington. His application granted, readmitted when school year began even given part time job university, informa *5 ‐ tion technology staff—which seems odd, as might give access confidential record his expulsion.
The suit based on U.S.C. § 1983, authorizes suits against state local officials who violate federally pro tected civil rights. The complaint names trustees as defendants along dean students, provost, two inspectors who searched room, officer King. It seeks mandatory junction ordering destruction record his expulsion, damages from two King. litigation has attracted media attention. See, e.g., Dave Stafford, “7th Circuit Tosses IU Dorm ‐ Search Law suit,” Indiana Lawyer June 2012, www.theindianalawyer.com/ 7th ‐ circuit ‐ tosses ‐ iu ‐ lawsuit/PARAMS/article/29121 (visited Dec. 2013). Stafford’s article refers an earlier stage litiga tion, when dismissed moot appeal from denial his motion preliminary injunction against enforcement year suspension; appeal moot because year up, so injunction effect. Medlock Trustees Indiana University 2012).
Medlock claims plus vio lated Amendment right free unrea sonable search. also complains about having given hearing expelled, we’ll start there. district court granted summary judgment all defen dants all charges. argues due process clause Four
teenth Amendment entitled such hearing (that is, *6 “predeprivation hearing”). is not seeking damages for that alleged denial of due process of law, but denial if proved would be ground expungement of re cord his expulsion, is relief that he does seek.
There is merit to due process claim. your face flagrancy violation university rules (he plenty warning impending inspection, remem ber), Indiana’s criminal law, required university take immediate remedial action if commitment its rules, legality, not be questioned. See Goss Lopez 581–83 (1975).
And even if—as we don’t moment believe—the failure give hearing expelled denied due process law, we can’t understand how de struction record his expulsion thought proper remedy. It’s not there’s doubt about hav violated not only rules also Indiana’s criminal law. We said repeat “we are reluc tant encourage further bureaucratization by judicializing university disciplinary proceedings, mindful also dimension academic freedom right academic stitutions operate free heavy handed governmental, cluding judicial, interference.” Osteen Henley 1993).
Indiana University public university, owned by State Indiana, university employees therefore state actors. (We can’t understand defendants’ argument, accepted district judge, they state actors.) And so they can sued under section violating Amendment, held protected against state action interpre *7 1900 7 tation of due process clause of Fourteenth Amend ‐ ment. exclusionary rule—the rule that renders evi ‐ dence obtained in violation Amendment in admissible in (some) judicial proceedings—is applicable ly criminal proceedings. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Board Probation & Parole v. Scott U.S. 357, 363–64 (1998); INS v. Lopez Mendoza U.S. (1984); United States Ca landra 349–52 (1974); Thompson Carthage School District 1996). The last these cases involved, like this case, expulsion from public school.
So marijuana drug paraphernalia seized from Medlock’s were admissible in suspension proceed (which was course noncriminal)—and addi tional reason that didn’t object admission that proceeding. seized items provided compelling evi dence serious violations code conduct. His giant marijuana plant (a small tree, really) was providing dealer quantity marijuana. And while criminal charges against dropped, this been lack evidence. provost testified that quantity marijuana marijuana paraphernalia found made her suspect that was dis tributing marijuana students. As dean stu dents testified, “the quantity that here present was such that hard believe it personal use” only. added “in [his] years being Senior Student Af fairs Officer this ranks maybe first second terms amount I’ve seen time taken room.” And this said when dean thought only grams *8 room. When told it had been grams remarked: “that placed certainly number one.”
Although as noted earlier fruits search admissible disciplinary purposes even if obtained vio lation Fourth Amendment, violation amendment (if there a violation) would entitle to damages. Hudson v. Michigan , 597–98 (2006); Guzman v. City Chicago F.3d 398–99 (7th Cir. 2009); Gonzalez Entress F.3d 1998); Thompson Carthage School District supra 981–82. there violation. consented ad vance, condition being allowed to live dormi tory, to have his searched contraband evidence violation health safety code. He have lived off campus thus have avoided being gov erned by code. chose to trade some privacy dorm room. His expulsion amounted holding contract.
Even without explicit consent, even spectors been public officers, search would lawful regulatory search. In diana University’s housing code equivalent local housing code, “it difficult enforce such code without occasional inspections” “impossible rely system inspections enforce code without mak them compulsory, since violators will refuse consent being inspected. In these circumstances Amendment’s requirement all warrants sup ported ‘probable cause’ can satisfied demonstrating reasonableness regulatory package includes compulsory inspections.” Platteville Area Apartment Associa *9 No. 13 1900 9 tion v. City Platteville , 179 F.3d 574, 578 1999); see, e.g., Camara v. Municipal Court , 387 U.S. 523, 536–38 (1967). Those cases involved warrants, but warrants are not re ‐ quired when “special needs, beyond normal need law enforcement, make warrant probable cause re ‐ quirement impracticable.” Griffin v. Wisconsin , U.S. 868, (1987). Special needs are in school setting, Board Education Independent School District v. Earls , U.S. 828–30 (2002); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton U.S. 652–53, (1995), a setting in requir a search warrant “would unduly interfere with main tenance swift informal disciplinary procedures needed.” New Jersey T.L.O. (1985); cf. Os teen Henley supra 225–26.
The search that officer conducted ob tained warrant stands a somewhat different footing. inspector whom Medlock deciding live in authorized search room. A Z Guide —the housing handbook—states “authorized personnel performing safety spections may enter or apartment ensure health, fire, safety regulations being maintained” “no provision housing contract gives residence hall officials authority consent search resi dent’s apartment or government ficials” “any law enforcement agency having jurisdic tion may, performing statutory duties, conduct search [only] accordance legally defined procedures governing search seizure.” King’s entry superfluous events so
far harm concerned. inspec *10 10 13 ‐ 1900 tors had already searched and marijuana and contraband. closet door was open (Medlock does not deny this) and so plant was plain view—not all it, enough make its character unmistakable. What King saw had seen. intru sion privacy complete King en tered. And this wrong third person’s glimpse incriminating scene be thought incremental trusion, liability would blocked venerable principle de minimis non curat lex , has held applicable variety constitutional settings. E.g., United States v. Jacob sen , 466 U.S. 109, 120–21, 126 (1984); Washington v. Hively , 695 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2012); Brandt v. Board Education , 480 F.3d 460, 465 (7th Cir. 2007); Hessel v. O ʹ Hearn , 977 F.2d 299, ‐ (7th Cir. 1992); Artes ‐ Roy v. City Aspen 31 F.3d 958, (10th Cir. 1994) (a case factually rather similar present one).
Moreover, reasonableness touchstone Amendment, Kentucky v. King S. Ct. (2011); Brigham City Stuart (2006); Hamilton Village Oak Lawn 2013), ficer acting reasonably backing up inspectors. They entered dorm lawfully plain view revealed marijuana. What they do? Remove suspected room? they just students, university administration may want seen hall ways carrying quantities illegal drugs (espe cially six foot tall plant) drug parapherna lia, may want suspicions possible criminal activ ity confirmed dispelled forthwith officer. It thus sensible students summon *11 officer confirm suspicion that they contraband and remove the stuff.
There is suggestion of pretext bad faith the part defendants. Officer King did not set out take advantage pre existing inspection, stu dents did not enter law enforce ment purposes. By time became aware spection entered room, searched it—lawfully.
In short, case is near frivolous, decision sue two offensive, most surprising feature entire episode is exceptional lenity with state (in state does allow me dicinal, let alone recreational, use marijuana) treated brazen violator rules conduct criminal law. we noted some years ago, “the danger out procedural safeguards deemed appropriate civil criminal litigation public universities will engage orgy expulsions slight. relation students uni versities is, after all, essentially customer seller.” Osteen Henley supra 226. And may judge happy ending bust Medlock, customer indeed always right.
A FFIRMED .