## Facts

- Jason Limpuangthip lived in a private university dormitory in Washington, D.C., and signed a housing agreement permitting university officials to enter and inspect his room for rule violations and suspected criminal activity.
- A community director responsible for enforcing the residential code conducted “administrative searches” when activities might endanger student health or welfare; she had received search training from the university police.
- The university police force included Special Police Officers (SPOs) commissioned by the District and given arrest authority for protecting the employer’s property, though they remained university employees under university control.
- University police received an anonymous tip alleging drugs in Limpuangthip’s dorm room.
- The community director initiated an administrative search and went to the room with a residential assistant and two uniformed SPOs.
- The community director conducted the search; the SPOs were present for security and provided evidence bags and took custody of seized items, but did not physically search the room or direct the scope of the search.
- Limpuangthip arrived during the search and showed the community director some drugs and paraphernalia; additional items were found in the room.
- Items seized included marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, drug paraphernalia, and cash.
- After a bench trial, Limpuangthip was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of psilocybin, and he appealed the denial of his suppression motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a warrantless dorm-room search initiated and conducted by a private university administrator, with commissioned SPOs present, constituted state action triggering Fourth Amendment limits and requiring suppression.
2. Whether the “administrative search” label was a pretext that effectively made the administrator an agent of law enforcement, converting the search into governmental action.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the search, as conducted, did not implicate the Fourth Amendment because it was a private administrative search for institutional purposes, not governmental action.
- The court concluded the SPOs’ limited, passive assistance (security, evidence handling) did not convert the administrator’s search into state action.
- The court found no evidentiary basis to treat the search as a device to evade Fourth Amendment warrant requirements through coordinated law-enforcement direction.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment applies only to governmental conduct or private conduct fairly attributable to the state; purely private searches generally fall outside its limits.
- The state-action inquiry is fact-specific and turns on what commissioned officers actually did during the challenged search, not solely on their statutory authority.
- A private party’s search is not transformed into governmental action absent sufficient joint participation, direction, or a close nexus between the state and the challenged conduct.
- Evidence later used in a criminal prosecution does not, without more, convert a private administrative search into state action.
- Contractual housing terms and institutional policies authorizing inspections may qualify a student’s privacy expectations vis-à-vis university officials and support characterization of an inspection as administrative rather than law enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of suppression because the dorm-room search was initiated and carried out by private university personnel for institutional safety and rule-enforcement reasons, and the commissioned campus officers’ passive presence and evidence-handling role did not make the search attributable to the government for Fourth Amendment purposes.


Limpuangthip v. United States, 932 A.2d 1137 (D.C. 2007)