WPC" # V %ag 0o4 2 0A 0D4 U>x w@ 0J 0T@ 0^ 0h 0rZ 0| 0H 0 1u^U, 0U,U6U.!B)O Bx D3DC AM  0@XU*MW-v~vj AO=!! 0DR" D/" B"HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0  X(,$     7XXdXXd7yp P 3|x((3I$ ,!     7xXXdXXd7   `   0  (#$  0  <( 9Z &Courier Regular PU PU$DDDDDӀ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernPp 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X\R\<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Courier% Line 7 d d))))'dxd((((7Border 1dd-+C << G("$    <  9p`(Arial  !  #d#&           #d#  ..   YYY FILED.X July15,1996CecilCrowson,Jr..AppellateCourtClerk  C !#d#&           #d#   $       ݛThisissueisbeforetheCourtasacertifiedquestionoflawpursuanttoTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2).TheCourtofCriminalAppealsdisagreedonwhetherthequestionwasproperlycertifiedunderRule37(b);however,becausetheStateneitherbriefednorarguedtheissue,wehavenotaddressedithere.  !#d#&           #d#   $       "DeanBrown"isnotsufficientlyidentifiedintherecord;weassumethat"Dean"isatitleratherthananame.  !#d#&           #d#   $       ݛThiscaseinvolvedtwodefendants.InanorderdatedApril19,1985,theSixthCircuitgrantedarehearingenbancvacatingthisopinionandjudgmentindefendantHowardsappealonly.UnitedStatesv.Howard,770F.2d57,59(6thCir.1985).However,inthelateropinion,thecourtadoptedsectionsI,II,III,andIVoftheopinionwerelyonforresolutionoftheissuebeforeus.770F.2dat62.PtPtStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &%%Xd&#%%Xd#&           #''Xd##''Xd#  ` XX\RA'\7xXXdXXd7  L,/+;+'h|` - `Lߛ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE,)FORPUBLICATIOǸ    )     )FILED:July15,1996 Appellee,   )     )KNOXCRIMINALVS.     )     )HON.RICHARDBAUMGARTNER,DERRONBURROUGHS,   ) JUDGE    )̀ Appellant.  )NO.03S019507CR00075̜ForAppellant:     ForAppellee:MarkE.Stephens   CharlesW.BursonDistrictPublicDefender   AttorneyGeneralandReporterR.ScottCarpenter    DarianB.TaylorAssistantPublicDefender  AssistantAttorneyGeneralKnoxville,TN     Nashville,TN̜̜      RandallE.Nichols      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      TonyStansberry      AssistantDistrictAttorney      General         Knoxville,TN       ̜@ OPINIONAFFIRMED          BIRCH,C.J.Ӝ WeacceptedthiscaseinordertodiscussthecriteriaϜfordeterminingwhentheactionofaprivateindividualinconductingawarrantlesssearchofadormitoryroomqualifiestheindividualasa stateagentandtheconductasstateaction. 0   כInthiscase,wehaveconcludedthattheindividualwasnotastateagent. Therecordindicatesthatthedefendant,DerronBurroughs,wasastudentatKnoxvilleCollege,aprivateeducationalinstitution.HeresidedinMcGranahanHall,adormitorylocatedonthecampus.AsDirectorofResidentialLifeandDirectorofMcGranahanHall,ChesterPettyhadbroadresponsibilityforthediscipline,health,andsafetyofthestudentbodyaswellasspecificchargeofMcGranahanHall. Asaconditiontoresidinginthedormitory,studentsmustconsentto"unannounced,unscheduled"entriesintotheirroomsforthepurposeofmaintaining"lawandorder"withrespecttoestablishedschoolpolicy.Thispolicyisstatedintheschoolhandbook.Additionally,a"StudentHousingContract"executedbythedefendantcontainsthesameprovisionregardingunannouncedentry.Moreover,thiscontractprovidesthatstudentsmaynot"possess,consume...ordistributeillegalsubstancesintheresidencehalls." Inthefallof1992,Pettyreceivedinformationthatillegaldrugswere"possibly"locatedinthedefendant'sdormitoryroom.Pettywenttotheroomandknocked.Receivingnoresponse,heusedamasterkeytogainentry.Hesearchedanddiscoveredasetofelectronicscalesandacigarboxcontainingaquantityof"whitepowderysubstance." PettyimmediatelycontactedDeanBrown, 1   ׀whocalledNathanielAllen,anofficeremployedbytheKnoxvillePoliceDepartment.Allenhadoftencollaboratedwithcollegepersonnelinhandlingmattersofthistype;hewasdescribedas"liaison"forlawenforcementmattersbetweenthecollegeandtheKnoxvillePoliceDepartment. WhenAllenarrived,Pettyshowedhimthecontraband.AfterAllenidentifiedthecontrabandasresemblingcocaine,hecallednarcoticsofficerJimMarcum.AllentestifiedthathetookpossessionofthecontrabandafterPettyremoveditfromthedefendantsroom.Thedefendantwaslaterquestionedandarrested. InthisCourt,thedefendantcontendsthatPetty,insearchinghisroomwithouthavingfirstobtainedasearchwarrantandinseizingcontrabanddiscoveredtherein,violatedtheFourthAmendmentprotectionsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.Specifically,heassertsthatPettyactedasanagentorinstrumentofthestate,and,insuchcapacity,hisconductinsearchingwithoutawarrantwasattributabletothestate. TheFourthAmendment,madeapplicabletothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment,bydefinitionprotectsagainstunreasonablestateconductedsearchesandseizures.U.S.Const.amends.IV,XIV.Itexists,primarily,forthebenefitofthecitizen;itsoriginandhistoryclearlymanifestthattheFourthAmendmentwasintendedasarestraintupontheactivitiesofthesovereignauthoritytotheextentthatacitizenmaybesecureintheunmolestedenjoymentofhomeandpossessions,exceptbyvirtueofprocessdulyissued.ThisintentionwasreinforcedinBurdeauv.McDowell,256U.S.465(1921).InBurdeau,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheFourthAmendmentlimitsonlygovernmentalactivity;consequently,evidencesecuredbyprivateϜpersonsand,perhaps,byillegalmeansneednotbeexcludedfromevidenceinacriminaltrial.TheBurdeauholdingisstillvalid,buttheissueofpreciselyhowandwhenprivateconductinthiscontextischargeabletothestatefrequentlyhasbeenlitigatedwithmixedresults. AlthoughTennesseecourtshavenotdirectlyaddressedthisissue,federalcourtshave.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinCoolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,487(1971),recognizedthatasearchbyaprivateindividualmaytransgresstheprotectionsoftheFourthandFourteenthAmendmentswhenanindividualactsasanagentorinstrumentofthestate.AsaresultoftheholdinginCoolidge,federalcourtsbegantodevelopcriteriafordeterminingthepointatwhichaprivateindividualbecomesanagentorinstrumentofthestate,imputing,thereby,violationsoftheFourthAmendmenttothestate.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Attson,900F.2d1427(9thCir.),cert.denied,498U.S.961(1990);UnitedStatesv.Pierce,893F.2d669(5thCir.1990),cert.denied,506U.S.1107(1992);UnitedStatesv.Lambert,771F.2d83(6thCir.),cert.denied,474U.S.1034(1985);UnitedStatesv.Howard,752F.2d220(6thCir.),cert.denied,472U.S.1029(1985); 2   כUnitedStatesv.Walther,652F.2d788(9thCir.1981). InUnitedStatesv.Walther,theNinthCircuitidentifiedthecriticalfactorsinthe"agentorinstrument"analysisas: (1)thegovernment'sknowledgeandacquiescence,and(2)theintentofthepartyperformingthesearch.652F.2dat792.Thistwoprongedtestisoftendescribedasthe"legitimateindependentmotivation"test,anditisthesecondprongthatwefindpertinenthere. InUnitedStatesv.Howard,theSixthCircuitappliedthe"legitimateindependentmotivation"testarticulatedinWalther.InHoward,aninsuranceinvestigatorandthepolicecooperatedinaninvestigation,albeitfordifferentreasons.Apparently,theybothextensivelysearchedthesubjectpremiseswithoutawarrant.Cooperation,however,doesnotnecessarilyequalagency.ThecourtheldthattheinsurancecompanyinvestigatorwasnotsubjecttotheFourthAmendmentbecausehisintentinconductingthesearchwas"entirelyindependentofthegovernment'sintenttocollectevidenceforuseinacriminalprosecution."752F.2dat227;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Capra,501F.2d267,272,n.4(2ndCir.1974),cert.denied,420U.S.990(1975)(whenpolicearemerelyassistingaprivatepartywhohasauthoritytosearchandalegitimateneedtodoso,courtsarereluctanttoexcludetheresultingevidence);cf.Stonev.Wingo,416F.2d857(6thCir.1969)(actionsofaprivatepartyattributedtostatewheretheprivatepartyactsinconcertwithstateauthoritiesinpursuitofthesamedesignorpurpose).Theinsurancecompanyinvestigatordidnotacttobenefitthegovernmentinitsinvestigative(oradministrative)capacity.The"intent"prongoftheWalthertestasappliedinHowardthusrecognizesthatapartyissubjecttotheFourthAmendmentonlywhenheorshehasformedthenecessaryintenttoassistthegovernment'sinvestigativeoradministrativefunction.However,underthetest,theFourthAmendmentwillnotapplywhentheprivatepartywasactingforareasonindependentofsuchagovernmentalpurpose. ConsideringthefactshereinlightoftheWaltherandHowardcriteria,itismanifestthatnoincursionupontheprotectionsfurnishedbytheFourthAmendmentagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresoccurredinthecaseundersubmission.WhiletherelationshipbetweenprivatecollegesanduniversitiesandthelocalpolicemayestablishastateactionlinksufficienttoengagetheFourthAmendmentprotections,suchalinkisnotpresenthere.TheKnoxvilleCollegestudenthousingcontract,whichthedefendantsigned,statesthatstudentsmaynotpossessorconsumealcoholicbeveragesorpossess,consumeordistributeillegalorcontrolledsubstancesintheresidencehalls.Thecontractalsograntstheresidencehalldirectorauthoritytomake unannounced,unscheduledentryofroomsinfurtheranceofestablishedschoolpolicy.AccordingtoPetty,hehadreceivedinformationthatdrugswere possiblylocatedinthedefendantsdormitoryroom.AsubsequentsearchbyPetty,conductedpriortonotifyingcollegesecurityandlocallawenforcementpersonnel,revealedcocaineandasetofelectronicscales.Thus,Pettyconductedthewarrantlesssearchnotasanagentofthestate,butasacollegeofficialwhosepurposeandactionswereinfurtheranceofcollegepolicy,notstatepolicy.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.̜     ____________________________________̜     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,ChiefJustice̜CONCUR:̛̜Drowota,Anderson,Reid,White,JJ.