In the digital age, I believe that the 4^th amendment alone is too vague to accurately protect peoples’ rights against search and seizure. The 4^th amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In the case of Kyllo v. United States, a thermal imaging device was aimed at a private home from a street in order to determine if the private home had special lamps used to grow marijuana plants. The lamps had a specific heat signature that could be picked up by the device. I think that from Kyllo’s perspective, that this is definitely an unreasonable search. It is as if the police can see inside his house without even entering and consequently can gain a warrant to come in without ever actually seeing what is going on in the house. From his perspective, even though he is using them to grow marijuana, he could be using the lamps for other things. However, while I see Kyllo’s point of view, I can also see why the police thought that it was okay to “search” his house from the street. They did not break and enter or perform what they thought was an unreasonable search. The 4^th amendment needs to be updated to more accurately protect people because we have so much new technology that skates the edges of the law.

Tasers were originally developed as a weapon that could be used by law enforcement so that deadly force would not be necessary, but they have proven to still be dangerous. Tasers essentially temporarily paralyze an individual by sending an electrical current through the body. They are thought of to be less dangerous than guns, so people have been using them more and more liberally and I think that there must be some new rules to prevent the abuse of tasers. In the case of Bryan v. McPherson, Bryan was tasered in my opinion, simply because he took one step towards officer McPherson. The officer’s defense was that he was threatened and since the weapon was non lethal, it was not an excessive display of force. However, I believe that tasering an unarmed man who has taken one step out of a car is definitely a display of excessive force. This brought to mind the situation at Elevate (http://abcnews.go.com/US/yale-university-questions-police-tasered-student-club-raid/story?id=11796814) a few weeks ago. This was another situation in which a taser was used excessively. The police were coming in to break up a Yale party as a part of a citywide crackdown on nightlife. The party was not grossly out of control, nor were any of the people at the party armed or considered dangerous. There was absolutely no reason for the SWAT team to come in fully armed and taser a person multiple times. Even if the student in question made a move towards a police officer, there were numerous officers and apparently only one “aggressive” student. Before the era of tasers, they probably would have simply subdued someone who came after them with simple manpower. This would have been easy to do in this situation because the police officers outnumbered the aggressor(s) by so many. Now that we have tasers and they are considered not deadly, the “easy” fix is to whip out the taser and use it. I know that tasers are a relatively new technology, but there need to be many more ground rules and regulations that prevent excessive and unnecessary uses. Even though the taser causes less deaths than guns do, it is still an excessive display of force and should not be used simply because an officer is too lazy to subdue the aggressor physically.

The Taser has quickly become the weapon of choice for officers.  A Taser is considered a non-lethal force that assists officers in handling dangerous individuals.  A Taser fires two electrodes that are sharp and penetrate through clothing into the skin.  Once piercing the skin, the probes release electricity into the body creating a painful disruption between the brain and the muscles.   This disruption incapacitates the individual while the electricity is flowing through the body, but when the current stops; it allows the individual to fully function.  While the use of the Taser has been of extreme benefit to the safety of police officers, there are advancing issues of officer abuse.  While the Taser is considered non-lethal force it is a very serious method of subduing an individual. While the use of the Taser is necessary in several cases and has even reduced lethal measures, the precedent is quickly being set on what is allowed when it comes to tasering an individual.

The fourth amendment raises a question of the probable cause needed to seize an individual using a Taser. At what point is an officer allowed to use a Taser in order to seize an individual?  While a taser is not legally considered lethal force, it’s result is violent and painful, and the media has made it more controversial in that it should be considered lethal force with regard to the violent self harm once tasered and the electrical effects to the heart which can result in death.  Regardless, specific guidelines are necessary for officers on what situations the Taser should be allowed.

Several cases are great examples of situations where a Taser was not necessary, for example, Brian v. McPherson.  Brian, a young man was having a hard day, having already been pulled over for a speeding ticket. Once again, Brian is pulled over, this time for not wearing his seat belt by Officer McPherson. After complying with the officer’s requests and pulling over, being very agitated with himself, Brian slams the steering wheel while swearing and crying because of the days misfortune.  Brian steps out of his car while the officer was 25 feet or so away and begins yelling at himself and hitting his thighs in self -disgust.  It is at this moment that the officer felt threatened and shot Brian with his Taser.  Brian falls to the hard pavement and sustains injuries. This illustrates a case that an officer used poor judgment in the use of taser.  Brian was simply releasing frustration and was not acting aggressive or combative in regard to the Officer.  To the officers defense, this scene does appear a little out of the ordinary for pulling someone over for a seat belt violation, but the use of a Taser while the individual is 20 plus feet away with hard pavement beneath him, and not approaching the officer is indisputably not the right thing to do.  The courts confirmed that Officer McPherson did not have a threatening issue to use a taser.

This is reminiscent of an incident that made national news when a young man in Utah was tasered for not complying with an officer’s instructions.  His offense? He refused to sign a speeding ticket.  While, he was not complying with the officer unlike the previous case, he did not appear to be a serious threat to the officer.  The Officer used unnecessary force, by opinion.  Check out the link to the clip.  Was their misconduct by the officer? Was it necessary?

Precedence setting issues, as well as training, are in evolution of a relatively new police equipment.  Cases like Brian’s will bring deterrence for issues of misconduct and is necessary when it comes to using a taser.  The Taser is a painful weapon that can be used to save lives, but guidelines and further discussion are needed to define unnecessary use. Most likely with the use of Tasers, assaults on police officers are down. Injuries to those being apprehended are mostly likely on decrease as well. This is a tool for cooperation and when an officer is faced with dilemmas of using his gun, baton or taser the later is best suited and provides utility to protect with the absence of misconduct.

In a recent email to his students, Pierson College Dean Amerigo Fabbri outlined the guidelines surrounding the college’s annual ‘Inferno’ dance party. The email explained that no parties would be permitted in Pierson dorms during the Inferno and warned: “Officers will be patrolling the courtyard and the entryways beginning at 9 p.m. If they hear excessive noise coming from your suite they will visit your room.”

Although I don’t believe anyone tested the policy this weekend, I’m prompted to ask what a student’s rights would be during a ‘visit’ by an officer. The Yale Police Department issued 19 infraction tickets to students during last year’s Spring Fling, many during warrantless and unannounced dorm room ‘raids’ that left students confused. Do Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure extend to Yale dormitories?

If an officer asks to enter and/or search your dorm room, can you refuse the request? What requirements must be met before an officer can legally enter a student dorm to conduct a search? Do these answers vary depending on whether Yale Security, the Yale Police Department, or the New Haven Police Department is involved? Extending these questions to the digital domain: Do students have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the Yale Network? Are emails, browsing histories, and other digital records protected, as they would be on a private home network?

A quick reading and keyword search of the Yale Undergraduate Regulations reveals no mention of the words ‘search’, ‘seizure’, or ‘warrant.’ In addition, Yale does not provide students living in on-campus dormitories with a formal lease agreement, a document that often includes policies on privacy and search regulation at other colleges.
Yale’s policy on electronic privacy is much clearer, with the University’s Information Technology Appropriate Use Policy outlining “circumstances in which, following carefully prescribed processes, the University may determine that certain broad concerns outweigh the value of a User’s expectation of privacy and warrant University access to relevant IT Systems without the consent of the User.” The University may access relevant information without user consent to comply with local, state, and federal laws, (including during the execution of police warrants), upon reasonable belief that University technology policy has been violated, and for a select number of other reasons. The explicit description of these policies clarifies, and at least somewhat reduces, concerns about policies on digital privacy and information search and seizure at Yale. A similar policy outlining regulations on traditional search and seizure and dorm room privacy is necessary and long overdue.

Even in the absence of University policy, search and seizure on college campuses is a widely legislated issue, mostly in state courts. In 2007 at Boston College, two students were arrested for possession of marijuana and cocaine after a campus police officer entered their dorm on suspicion of a violation of the University’s weapons policy. The students subsequently consented to a full search of the room, during which the illegal drugs were found by officers. Despite their consent to a search, the students argued that the initial entry into their dorm room by the university police officers violated their Fourth Amendment Rights, and that any subsequent searches and seizures were invalid. In 2009, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled against the students, citing that, as a private institution, initially enforcing institutional policy, the university and its officers were not required to abide by search and seizure limitations laid out by the Fourth Amendment. Although a permanent link is not available, the actual ruling can be found here, by searching for the docket number: 09-P-810.

However, similar cases have seen different outcomes in other state courts. In 2008, a Washington State Court of appeals ruling asserted that campus police had no right to randomly enter and patrol dormitory hallways, in which there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, as there would be in a usual apartment building or similar residence. Further, in a case involving Santa Clara University, a private institution, a warrantless dorm search conducted by police with permission from campus security officers was deemed unconstitutional. The dorm was considered the private residence and concern of the student, and therefore only the student, and not campus security, was deemed eligible to grant permission for a search.

As in the case of the 2010 Spring Fling, warrantless (and unannounced) dorm room searches have been and continue to be conducted at Yale. As of now, none have been challenged in court, and it is difficult to predict what the results of such a challenge would be. Especially considering the blurring of the private versus public enforcement distinction (with the Yale Police Department existing as a sort of middle ground between campus security and local police) and with the lack of any clear University policy, an uncomfortable state of ignorance seems to surround the entire issue. Perhaps greater student interest or concern would force the University to address some of the ambiguities that exist.

Regardless, students should not expect the protection of their constitutional rights to be put on hold while they attend college. We should expect a clear university policy that respects the spirit of these rights, rather than attempts to stretch the limits of legal search and seizure on campus. When acting to enforce Connecticut state law rather than simply University policy, Yale Police officers should be held to Fourth Amendment standards. Even without legislative action, the University should recognize that unannounced, warrantless searches by officers acting in such a capacity are unreasonably invasive and that dorm rooms truly are the private residences of students, just like any home or apartment.

Note: I have contacted Marichal Gentry, Yale College Dean of Student Affairs to ask for a clarification on Yale’s policies regarding search and seizure in dorm rooms. I will update this post as soon as I am able to get in touch and receive an answer.