## Facts

- Patrick N. Devers, a Southern University student, lived in a campus dormitory under a Housing Agreement authorizing room inspections.
- The university conducted periodic dormitory “sweeps,” sometimes involving law enforcement.
- During a sweep on March 8, 1995, officials found twelve bags of marijuana in Devers’s dorm room.
- Devers was arrested and administratively expelled, barring him from classes.
- After Devers sought injunctive relief, a trial court vacated the administrative expulsion and required only a suspension pending a university Judiciary Committee hearing.
- The Judiciary Committee found Devers violated the student code for drug possession and related misconduct and recommended expulsion.
- A vice chancellor adopted the recommendation and advised Devers of internal appeal procedures; Devers did not pursue an internal appeal.
- Devers amended his lawsuit to assert a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, alleging the sweep search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court declared the dormitory sweep policy “prima facie unconstitutional,” dismissed several defendants on summary judgment, and denied Devers’s discovery motions and request for sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether a public university’s dormitory sweep policy authorizing broad, warrantless searches with law-enforcement participation is prima facie unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether summary judgment dismissing various university officials and state entities from Devers’s claims was error.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Devers’s discovery motions and request for sanctions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the determination that the dormitory sweep policy was prima facie unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing several individual defendants and state entities.
- The court affirmed the denial of Devers’s discovery motions and request for sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion and no showing of irreparable harm.

## Legal Principles

- Students in public university dormitories retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their dorm rooms, though it may be somewhat reduced by reasonable institutional regulations.
- A housing agreement cannot validly function as blanket consent for open-ended, suspicionless searches aimed at general law enforcement objectives.
- Reasonable, limited inspections for legitimate institutional purposes (such as maintenance or health and safety) are treated differently from searches conducted in conjunction with police for criminal enforcement.
- When university officials act jointly with or for law enforcement in conducting broad warrantless searches, the activity is treated as governmental law-enforcement searching and generally requires a warrant, valid consent, or a recognized Fourth Amendment exception.
- Section 1983 liability requires an adequate factual and legal basis tying a particular defendant to the alleged constitutional violation; dismissal is proper where personal involvement or causation is not shown.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in managing discovery and sanctions; appellate review is deferential absent abuse of discretion or demonstrated harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that Southern University’s dormitory sweep policy, which authorized broad warrantless searches and contemplated police involvement, was prima facie unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, while also affirming dismissal of certain defendants and affirming the trial court’s discovery and sanctions rulings.


Devers v. S. Univ. & A & M Coll., 712 So. 2d 199 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998)