Security recently entered the dorm room of UT sophomore Evan Olson after reportedly having smelled marijuana in the hallway.
In the process, security wrote up the room’s occupant for a weapon’s violation after discovering a machete in his possession.
Director of campus safety and security Charles Mascenik states that police were not called and that discretion regarding the offense was immediately handed over to the UT judicial board. Despite the underplayed nature of the incident, such episodes have sparked controversy among the student body over the extent of students’ right to privacy and the latitude of campus security to enter rooms at will.
“It’s a violation of privacy,” said sophomore Cari Shulman, when asked to give her thoughts about the incident.
Fellow sophomore Billy Mulligan elaborated on this opinion. “Smell alone shouldn’t be a reason to search a room,” he said. “If security knocks on the door and the kid looks stoned or they see smoke, that’s a different story.”
The problem with this approach is that campus security can do more than knock and wait for a response. They have the tools and the authorization to search a room with or without the permission of its occupant.
Mascenik explained the practical security procedure involved in responding to notification of a possible offense. “We will always knock on the door first, but if no one answers we just key in.”
Another common concern among interviewed students was that a vague suspicion — such as a smell or an anonymous call — could lead to a thorough search of unrelated rooms in the general vicinity under suspicion. They saw this not only as an inconvenience to uninvolved students, but as a blatant affront to their right to privacy.
“If it isn’t clear what room the smell is coming from, they shouldn’t just guess,” said sophomore Tyler Ianacone. “They should wait and investigate a little more.”
A minority of students agreed that it was permissible for security to search rooms for no other reason than unfounded suspicion, but disagreed that it was acceptable to note down additional charges.
Junior Sam Vagnoni made known her opinion on the matter: “Well it’s probable cause, just like how cops can smell alcohol in a car and give you a DUI,” she said.
“But they shouldn’t be able to bust you for [something] they weren’t looking for.”
As with this most recent incident with the machete, Mascenik explained that any violation of the school code of conduct, whether related to the initial charge or not, has the potential to fall under scrutiny and be referred to the judicial system.
He addressed in particular, the school alcohol policy and the strict delineation between wet and dry dorms, saying, “If we enter a wet dorm and everyone is of age then there’s no problem, but dry dorms are fair game.”
Mascenik took a very practical and straight-forward view of the student-voiced concerns over privacy violations. He pointed out that the housing contract signed by all UT dorm residents clearly states the terms of living on campus.
He further explained that housing and disciplinary policies have the backing of the students themselves.
“The rules and regulations enforced at UT were all approved by student council,” he said.
And what of the hue and cry raised over the questionable “breaking and taking” policies of campus security?
“We’re not police,” Mascenik explained. “We don’t fall under any search and seizure laws.”
Jeff Palmer can be reached at jeffrey.palmer@spartans.ut.edu