Saturday, Sept. 22, 12:07 a.m. A narcotics violation occurred at the townhouses. The Fairfield Police Department was called.
While this would appear to be just another snippet of the week’s Crime Beat, these 13 words do not begin to tell the story, which could adversely affect on-campus students.
Early that Saturday morning Public Safety officers entered townhouse 115, where they would find 21 articles in violation of University policy, including multiple pieces of drug paraphernalia.
But what the Crime Beat blurb doesn’t reveal is that not one person was home at the time of the search, leaving open the question of why Public Safety entered in the first place.
The issue was recently resolved, after over two months of deliberation. One student was suspended for the upcoming spring semester, another forced to live off campus and the other five reassigned to Claver.
With regard to searches, the 2007-08 Student Handbook states:
“A room search will be conducted only when there is a reason to believe that there is property or evidence within a particular room that is in violation of University policy and/or state or federal law, or material that is needed for evidence in a University disciplinary hearing.”
According to Area Coordinator Charlie Sousa’s report from the night of the incident, Sousa, along with two Public Safety officers and another area coordinator, observed girls entering the townhouse at 12:07 a.m.
At 12:02 a.m., two students, Rachel Seibold ’09 and Kailee O’Neil ’09, were observed “walking with open alcohol containers,” trying to enter townhouse 115, which is not their residence, while ignoring a Public Safety officer’s request to stop.
Seibold, meanwhile, denied that they were trying to get into the house, instead saying that they were walking by with drinks when someone yelled, “Hey girls!”
According to Seibold, “We didn’t even look in the window or door,” when putting their drinks on the porch.
Seibold estimates that Public Safety detained them for approximately five minutes, asking them several questions before they were allowed to leave.
She, along with O’Neil, denied hearing loud music at the house, a claim disregarded by Public Safety during a meeting following the incident with the students who lived in the house.
Seibold said they were told that they weren’t involved in the situation, so they needed to leave.
While Public Safety’s report observed students entering the house, Sousa’s report states that even after Public Safety, townhouse managers and the area coordinators waited at the back and front door, “we did not see anyone exit the house.”
Both reports claim that there was loud music playing; however, Sousa’s report claimed that they entered the house because they saw students enter and not return. Meanwhile, Sgt. John Richie’s report does not reference the students as the reason for entering the house, but rather the loud music.
A welfare check was then conducted after no one answered the door, at which time two glass pipes were found in clear sight as well as a “roach” on the kitchen table. Permission for a full search was then requested and approved by Director of Housing Operations Gary Stephenson.
Public Safety is held to different standards than state or local police forces when conducting a search because the University is a private institution. Among other stipulations, Public Safety officers do not need a search warrant, just permission, according to Director of Public Safety Todd Pelazza.
Asked whether Public Safety has recently overstepped its boundaries, Pelazza could not recall any specific instances.
“Certainly our powers are not unlimited. Our authority comes from the University administrators,” he said in an e-mail. “Are we perfect? No. However, I am not aware of specific incidents where DPS has overstepped our authority.”
Regardless, University officials were unable to speak about specifics of the case because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Under FERPA, University officials are bound to silence by law regarding student “education records.”
For this reason, Dean of Students Thomas Pellegrino could not speak directly about the events involving townhouse 115, but he cautioned that conclusions should not be drawn because the student-sensitive material is unavailable to the public and thus “will not be supported by factual evidence.”
“Any questions as to the propriety of events occurring at this townhouse were fully and fairly adjudicated in our student conduct process, which includes full opportunities to present opposing views, witnesses and allows for appeals,” he said.
As far as admittance into the townhouse, Pellegrino referred to laws that govern the school in dictating the circumstances upon which school employees can enter a house.
Click to see Residential Guidelines
This contract, which a resident agrees to upon moving into his/her living space, allows “University employees the right to enter the apartment or townhouse for inspections for cleanliness, repairs and to assure the terms of this agreement are being met and that University policies are being adhered to.”
Attorney Charles J. Adams of Patrick F. Adams in Bayshore, N.Y., in examining the case at a distance, felt as if Public Safety was covered because Fairfield is a private school.
“As long as there was no state involvement in the search, it may be upheld and the evidence admitted even if the search would have been illegal if conducted by a state agent,” said Adams.
However, because the reports are seemingly in conflict, probable cause could be brought into question.
“Clearly, if the University can’t get its story straight on what complaint drew them to the premises, they are going to have a harder time with probable cause,” he said.
Adams said the ends would justify the means. Because illegal items were in “plain sight” when Public Safety entered, the University can justify the search.
Leave a Reply