Private University seizure of firearms

[Ed N.]

Considering that this is an off-campus apartment, I suspect a good lawyer could make a strong argument that this was the home of the students. In many jurisdictions, a landlord cannot prohibit tenants from keeping firearms in their home.

My son's college (UWF) owns a golf course near the campus. I don't think they can prohibit golfers from carrying concealed weapons just because the owner happens to be a university. Universities own all sorts of properties and businesses these days; that doesn't make them part of the campus.

If the college isn't careful, this thing may have great legs. Looks like it'd make a wonderful test case.

 

[zxcvbob]

Here is the exact rule they allegedly broke. Pay particular attention to the commas:

Possession, use, display, sale or exchange of weapons at any location on campus, including University residential facilities and privately-owned vehicles, is prohibited.

 

[Jim K]

They don't say what happens if someone does something that is "prohibited". There is not much the school can do; they can't make an arrest and they probably can't keep the guns, though they could demand removal from campus. Other than that, their "big club" is expulsion. (Even if campus security personnel are also police officers, they cannot, as police, enforce campus regulations.)

So, it smells to me like a little deal was made. The students agree not to sue the pants off the university, and the university agrees to let them complete their schooling. The guns will, very probably, be given back to the students or their representative off campus.

Remember, they could take the school to court for "creating an atmosphere" in which non-student felons could "prey on helpless students", etc. Not good PR for the school, even if it prevails in court.

Jim

 

[Ed N.]

It appears to me that this rule applies on campus. The apartment was off campus.

 

[herrwalther]

On or off campus carries little weight when it comes to certain private universities. I was located in off campus housing during one of my undergrad years and I was still instructed to abide by the rules and regulations of the university as if I were living in one of the dorms on campus. One of which was a similar no firearm policy.

 

[Deus Machina]

It might not make any difference to the university, but it may to the state.
For some states, laws specify that weapons aren't allowed on campus or to school sporting events or the like. Off-campus housing may or may not be considered campus grounds depending on state, because the school pays for it. In many, if it's not the grounds the school itself is on, the school can punish you under school rules, but actual law is on your side.

I hadn't read about what happened with the guns yet. Confiscated until they're kept somewhere else? Aggravating, but fine. Confiscated without any plans on what to do with them? Lawyers are getting involved.

 

[splithoof]

The students got into hot water because they seem to have violated school policy, a policy that they very likely had to agree to in order to use the student housing. Bottom line, THEY MESSED UP BY VIOLATING A POLICY THEY AGREED TO. When are folks going to start taking responsibility for their own actions? If their lease/rental agreement made no mention of firearms, then of course all may be different. However, if their lease stipulated a "no firearms" policy, they are to blame for whatever they get. They should have looked into this BEFORE they agreed, and they chosen to live elsewhere.

 

[docsleepy]

Very interesting lawyer thread -- lots of concepts being bandied about.

Apparently their policy explicitly states "on campus" control -- not "university-owned" -- so the GU campus security may have been completely out of power here.

EDIT: oops, didn't see all the recent posts which have already pointed this out multiple times....sorry.

The lawyer-types on that thread are calling it two Class B felonies.

 

[docsleepy]

splithoof: I am in agreement with you that they may (depending on the exact wording) have violated "policy". Note that I have been unable to find a copy of their lease, and the stated policy may NOT have included their off-campus apartment.

I'm not arguing that people don't have to follow what they sign.

What I am arguing is that the same applies to the University, which has to follow its own policies, as well as the law of the land.

And when I read the University's Alcohol & Weapons policy, while there was a procedure to be followed int he event of Alcohol, there was NOTHING about what to do in the event a firearm was brought to an prohibited place: hence I am questioning whether the UNIVERSITY has violated ITS policy.

You would agree that they are also bound by law?

 

[tnxdshooter]

When I called this morning at breakfast (not thinking about the time difference....) their person said their security guards are NOT police officers.

On MY campus, they ARE.

Then they have no authority to be confiscating anything.

 

[Ash]

"no government involved here."

But that is the problem. How is it a private university does not have to abide by the same laws that we do? Can a super of any other apartment show up with his guys to take guns from an apartment anywhere else? They guys can be expelled without refund for violating policy. If the apartment is school-owned they can argue it is an extension of the campus.

Selective enforcement of laws is a sign of tyranny. No, we are not the last days of Animal Farm, but the shadowy echoes need to be addressed.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Straight from the student handbook that every student signs...

Page 19-20 of the Gonzaga University Student Handbook:

______
WEAPONS, FIREWORKS & EXPLOSIVES

The presence and use of weapons on campus presents a potential threat to the safety of all community members. Use or display of weapons may result in threat or injury to self or others. Use or display of weapons, whether intentional or not, is generally inconsistent with the University’s Ethos Statement and may be illegal.

Possession, use, display, sale or exchange of weapons at any location on campus, including University residential facilities and privately-owned vehicles, is prohibited. The term “weapon” means any object designed to propel an object, inflict a wound, cause injury, incapacitate, damage property or cause a reasonable fear of such, and includes, but is not limited to, all firearms, pellet/BB/air guns, paintball guns, home-manufactured cannons or explosive devices, bows and arrows, slingshots, clubs, martial arts devices, switchblades or otherwise-illegal knives or knives with a blade longer than three inches (with the exception of kitchen knives in our University homes and apartments). Replica guns and other simulated weapons are included within this policy. Objects otherwise not considered weapons, and knives with blades less than three inches, may be included within this policy if used as a weapon. Fireworks, flammables, explosives and chemicals of an explosive and/or flammable nature are also prohibited.

Exceptions to this policy may be authorized by the Director of Campus Public Safety and Security. The University retains the right to search persons, possessions and bags and privately-owned vehicles on University property, and to confiscate, retain and dispose of/destroy all items covered by this policy regardless of value or ownership. Law enforcement may be contacted for some violations of this policy.
_______

Emphasis added

So, the students agreed to those standards by living in college owned housing and the college is in its right to enforce the policies the student agreed to.

http://www.gonzaga.edu/Student-Life...udent-Handbook-FINAL-Document-Interactive.pdf

 

[Radagast]

"any location on campus, including University residential facilities "
University residential facilities not located on campus would therefore not be covered by this policy.

"The University retains the right to search persons, possessions and bags and privately-owned vehicles on University property, and to confiscate, retain and dispose of/destroy all items covered by this policy regardless of value or ownership."

I seriously doubt this 'right' exists. Theft of property is theft, whether it occurs on campus or not.

I foresee a quiet sweeping under the rug of the criminal case against the university and its employees in return for the students continuing education and remarkably good grades from here on out.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

I am not a lawyer nor pretend to be one. Here are my observations.

The student entered into a private contract with the university agreeing to the policies in the handbook. If any of those policies are violated, the student would be subject to disciplinary action, which can include termination of the contract (kicked out of school). They must be notified of the violation prior to a disciplinary hearing (5th amendment, Due Process).

As stated before, the campus security guards are not sworn law enforcement and do not have the powers of arrest. In order for private property to be legally seized, they must first obtain a search warrant. If my understanding is correct, the only people who can obtain a search warrant are sworn law enforcement conducting an investigation (crime related). Property can only be seized for two reasons. If it was used to commit a crime, or if money is owed to another party and the court grants a seizure warrant (repossession). If property is seized, a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the confiscated property must be presented to the owner (4th amendment). I would be willing to bet they received neither! The fact that no crime was committed and no money was owed alludes to the fact that the university overstepped their bounds. The courts are the only true way to determine if this is a clear cut case of abuse of power and to decide what legal action can be taken. I would certainly get the NRA involved in this one. That is why the NRA ILA exists.

 

[zxcvbob]

"The University retains the right to search persons, possessions and bags and privately-owned vehicles on University property, and to confiscate, retain and dispose of/destroy all items covered by this policy regardless of value or ownership."

Firearms off-campus were specifically excluded in the previous section, so this "right to search" does not apply. It may apply to alcohol. Washington law also (somewhere) covers landlord-tenant agreements, and this paragraph probably does not fit the legal protections of a valid WA lease agreement. So it may be unenforceable off-campus just based on that.

I read somewhere yesterday that the university does not actually own the apartments in question. That also changes everything -- but I don't know how much it changes.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Pizzapinochle, you emphasized the wrong part. "Including University residential facilities" is clarifying the previous clause - that they are not allowed on campus. This means they don't allow exceptions for on-campus housing or vehicles.

There's really nothing to stop a University, particularly a private one, from making any policy they want. In reality, they could make it policy that you can't own firearms at all, regardless of where they're kept. I could actually see school lawyers pushing for similar policies to "protect" the school. For instance, the headline will likely read "student of Tyrrany University blows himself up while cooking meth." It doesn't matter that it's off campus. It still gives the impression that the school is involved.

I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying it carries any weight of law, but they can force students to abide by it under threat of expulsion. Such a policy would not, however, give them the power to enter or search (let alone sieze) property owned by another person off their campus.

To me, it has a little more weight if the building is owned by the university AND the State, as such, recognizes it as part of their "campus." If not, they really stepped in it.

 

[ngnrd]

First, a landlord cannot violate a person's civil rights as a condition of their lease.

Second, choosing to keep and bear arms is as much a civil right as is choosing to practice a particular religion.

Third, I am not a lawyer.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Taurus, everything you said is based on gov't action based on law.

The disciplinary process of a private institution does not have to follow those same laws.

There is no requirement for due process outside the criminal courts, when you enter a school and sign a student handbook/code of conduct, you agree to the discipline process in that document. There are schools that put in their code of conduct that drinking alcohol is prohibitted for the duration of your time as a student. That means if you go home over summer break, 2000 miles from school, get drunk, and post pictures on Facebook, the school can (and will) kick you out. Perfectly legal and yes, it does happen.

There is no requirement for a search warrant on private property if you have AGREED to let them search your room and confiscate property (which is what they agreed to in the student handbook).

In regards to on/off campus:

Also from the student code of conduct (page 28):

"ENTRY, SEARCH AND CONFISCATION
The Entry, Search and Confiscation Procedures contained within this section apply to residents and guests of all buildings operated by the Office of Housing and Residence Life."

If the housing is through the college, the code of conduct applies. If it isn't, then it does not. Should be pretty easy to figure out if they got the housing through an application with the Office of Housing and Residence Life. If they did, then they violated the code of conduct.

Radagast,

Your prediction is the best case scenarior for the students.

My prediction:

The chances of a criminal charge ever being brought against the university are highly unlikely, the chance of them actually being prosecuted are almost zero.

The students could be required to stay off campus until a disciplinary hearing.

The guns will be returned to the students on the agreement that they immediately relocate them to a non-university location. Wouldn't surprise me if law enforcement is involved in returning them.

After a disciplinary hearing for violating the student code of conduct, the students will have some type of disciplinary action taken against them ranging from warning, reprimand, probation, suspension, or expulsion from the university. The extent of the disciplinary action is HIGHLY subjective and will be heavily influenced by how the students conduct themselves during the process.

All the details for the discipline process are in the student code of conduct.

 

[Zoogster]

I would venture some of these leases or agreements are not actually legal.

You can put whatever you want in a contract, but many things are not legally enforceable.
It would depend on state law so what can be legal in a contract will vary.




316ss said:

Generally speaking, as I understand it, if you are on private property and you break the rules (not laws) in effect there, you can be asked to leave or be considered a trespasser. You cannot legally be detained, nor can your property be confiscated.

This is also how I understand it most places.


That said while it was probably unlawful for them to take property against the will of people within their place of residence, the school could choose to expel them.
As such both sides are probably trying to play it nice as they both did something wrong.


There is also things left for interpretation. The security could ask for the guns, and if given them not legally be taking them against the will of the student.
If however they took them against the desires of the owner then that could amount to unlawful acts, up to and including robbery depending on how it was done.





I would venture that the school realizes after some legal counsel that agents acting on their behalf were in violation of the law. While the students realize they could be in trouble for having the guns to begin with.
So both are going to come to a nice agreement so everything can just continue as normal.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I would venture some of these leases or agreements are not actually legal.

You can put whatever you want in a contract, but many things are not legally enforceable.
It would depend on state law so what can be legal in a contract will vary.

...

I would venture that the school realizes after some legal counsel that agents acting on their behalf were in violation of the law.

It is great for you to venture those guesses.

Gonzaga University, which as been around for over 125 years, probably knows a thing or two about the laws governing a university.

They have an office of general counsel that reviews legal documents produced for the university.

They have had a code of conduct for a good number of years and they have used it as a guideline for disciplining students for that whole time.

Here is where I start guessing: this is probably not the first time the code of conduct has been used to confiscate items from students. It won't be the last. The execution of such policies is a part of many universities policies:

University of Arizona: Confiscated weapon(s) or instrument(s) may be sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes. All seizures of prohibited items will be carried out within current policies regarding the processing of evidence.

Villanova University: Students suspected of violating the Code of Student Conduct are expected to cooperate fully with University officials in their efforts to obtain information, identification, and/or with the confiscation of prohibited items. Any lack of cooperation will be viewed as a serious violation of the Code.

Given the that all these universities have policies stating that they can confiscate prohibited items, I suspect they have some legal backing for including that language and that it has been tested.

If you google "college confiscate property" you will find plenty of examples of university policies regarding the confiscation and return of property through campus security.

These sort of policies do not become broad ranging, adopted across many states and universities/colleges, unless they legal precedence is well established.

 

[ngnrd]

These sort of policies do not become broad ranging, adopted across many states and universities/colleges, unless [their] legal precedence is well established.

It may also be possible that such policies have not been thoroughly challenged. Many court rulings have effects that are 'far-reaching', causing policies to be changed in multiple contexts, even across state lines.

Neither the fact that various public or private institutions (or agencies, or departments, or groups, or individuals) have such policies in place, nor the general acceptance of such policies, necessarily make those policies legal.

It only took one SCOTUS ruling (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) to nullify every 'Separate but Equal' (segregation) policy throughout the country. And those policies were even based on another SCOTUS ruling (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).

So, I don't assume for a minute that just because a policy is written, or that it is enforced, it is actually legal. Nor do I make that same assumption simply because similar policies are in place elsewhere. I guess I'm just not the type to 'go along to get along'.

 

[CWL]

It appears to me that this rule applies on campus. The apartment was off campus.

I understand that the housing is owned & managed by the Univ. and therefore considered part of the actual University.

 

[herrwalther]

It might not make any difference to the university, but it may to the state.

The university can still put you through the ringer. I went to school in a unicorn permit-less carry state. Every person I know who had firearms in their room who was busted were expelled or at the very least suspended. Expulsion or suspension is usually not as big a deal from public schools but from a higher cost private school, that is like shredding money. Personal vehicles were/are the safe haven for weapons on that particular campus because of the limited powers of the security as I mentioned. So even if the campus was facing a fruit of the poisonous tree type situation, you can still be slammed with firearm policy by the university, and they can do what they want with that.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Turns out, this has already been mostly resolved.

Both students are on probation, meaning they are in classes etc. but if they have another violation of the student code of conduct, they are likely to be expelled.

They had a lawyer, no reports of ANY attempts to take legal action. The police officer who responded to their 911 call is reported to have testified on their behalf at the disciplinary hearing.

The student are appealing the probation through the university process, but not suing or anything like that.

Doesn't seem like the students or their lawyer think there was anything legally amiss and they are returning to school.

 

[wojownik]

^ I wouldn't call this mostly resolved. Unless they win their appeal in the university (kangaroo) court, they both have permanent black marks on their record, and any further infraction will get them expelled. So, they're left living on pins and needles until they get their sheepskins.

Also, the university still retains possession of their confiscated firearms.

No, not mostly resolved by a long shot.

The university will most certainly clarify what on-campus means. When I went to college (decades ago), on-campus extended to any properties owned or leased by the university. So, while I am greatly sympathetic to the two students, and the may very well have been confused by ambiguous campus policy, they will be quite lucky if the university agrees back off even from probation. Gonzaga has a 99 year lease (no typo) on the property in which these two students resided.

It would be interesting if the university identified this property in any manner as "off campus housing". If so, the students have a better case to overturn their probation. My fingers are crossed for them. But as someone who himself enjoyed years of Jesuit-sponsored education, I remind myself of the culture of being sticklers for rules.