## Facts

- Deborah Ann Carboni was a student in a veterinary medicine program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and experienced significant academic difficulty, including a failing grade in a urology course taught by Don Waldron.
- Waldron allowed Carboni to take a single comprehensive make-up exam at his discretion.
- During the April 13, 1995 make-up exam, Waldron suspected Carboni of cheating based on a secretary’s report of papers seen in a women’s restroom stall and sounds of papers rustling under Carboni’s clothes as she exited.
- Carboni was escorted to a private area and searched by a female staff member (Rene Armstrong) to determine whether she had concealed exam materials; Carboni alleged the search amounted to an unconstitutional strip search.
- The university initiated misconduct proceedings; an Honor Board found Carboni guilty of cheating, and she was dismissed from the program after further review, including a faculty appeal.
- Carboni sued university employees and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment search; Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process) and asserted supplemental state-law tort claims, seeking damages and injunctive relief including readmission.

## Issues

1. Whether the search of Carboni’s person, conducted on suspicion of exam cheating, violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. If a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
3. Whether the Honor Board and faculty appeal procedures provided constitutionally sufficient procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Whether Carboni’s state-law claims (battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contract) could survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for all defendants on the § 1983 claims.
- The court held the search was reasonable under the circumstances; alternatively, the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of the search was not clearly established.
- The court held Carboni received constitutionally sufficient procedural due process through notice of charges, an opportunity to be heard before the Honor Board, and review via faculty appeal.
- The court resolved the supplemental state-law claims in defendants’ favor, entering overall judgment for defendants.

## Legal Principles

- A student search by university officials is evaluated for reasonableness under all the circumstances, balancing the individual’s privacy interests against the institution’s interest in maintaining academic integrity.
- A search supported by specific, individualized suspicion and conducted privately, by appropriate personnel, and with limited scope may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in an academic misconduct context.
- Qualified immunity shields public officials from damages liability unless the challenged conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time; officials are protected if reasonable officers could believe their conduct lawful.
- Procedural due process in student disciplinary matters generally requires notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond before deprivation of a significant educational interest; an internal appeal process may contribute to adequacy of procedures.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for university officials and employees, concluding that the suspected-cheating search was reasonable or, at minimum, not clearly unlawful for qualified-immunity purposes, and that the university’s Honor Board and appeal procedures provided the process constitutionally required before dismissal.


Carboni v. Meldrum, 949 F. Supp. 427 (W.D. Va. 1996)