Barging into student rooms without permission is not the way to go about an enquiry
The disappearance of Claudia Lawrence is a tragic and worrying story. It is one that will have troubled any free-spirited student who blithely assumed that York is a place of low crime where it is perfectly safe to stagger home drunkenly after a night out if money for taxi fare has mysteriously disappeared. I doubt there are many students who don’t feel sorry for Claudia’s family and don’t wish for her safe return. However, barging into student rooms without permission and failing to even inform residents of such happenings is not the best way to go about an enquiry.
It would be far too easy and overly simplistic for me to merely go on about human rights and the invasion of privacy, but the fact of the matter is that to enter someone’s residence without permission is an infringement of liberties. One can go on and on about how the majority of students would have said yes anyway, and how the police won’t be bothered about finding evidence of “indiscretions”, but this is missing the point. The point is that students not present in their rooms were unable to make this decision.
Without attempting to become all philosophical, it is not the outcome of the decision that is important; it is the principle of the decision itself. People have the right to decide for themselves who can and can’t enter into their living space; whether or not they have something to hide is irrelevant at this fundamental level. It was merely assumed that permission from individual students not present in their rooms was too difficult to come across and therefore not needed. So is anything that is too hard to obtain in an inquiry merely to be ignored or circumvented? I doubt it. So why should it be the case in this instance?
The only ones who will be affected by this breach of privacy will be first years and a handful of international students and postgraduates. The large majority of second and third years live off campus in private housing, where it would rightly be unthinkable for the police to break in without a search warrant or some form of official justification. So why is this allowed on campus? What rights do first years give up when they move in? This is not at all clear and is perhaps the bigger question at hand. In the grand scheme of things, it might not be terribly important if the police find some mouldy plates and some dubious fancy dress costumes, but it could set a precedent for other unauthorised searches, such as TV licence checks or even drug raids. This may seem a drastic jump but it is not overly hard to imagine when privacy has already been breached once.
When the University constantly sends out emails about fire safety audits, visiting electricians and repairs taking place in completely irrelevant places (I’ve had more messages about internet downtime in Langwith than a student in Halifax should ever need to know about), it seems odd and rather indicative that there was nothing concerning unwarranted searches. Yes, the University will inform you of random strangers coming into your flats and houses, but only when it suits them. Privacy is fantastic, but only on certain occasions.
The whole debacle might even prove to be pointless anyway. Many students living on campus have had to move out of their rooms over the holidays and even if not, is it really likely that any suspect will have left incriminating evidence to fester in a room for five weeks rather than getting rid of it? Even if any evidence is found, due to the lack of a warrant, it will more than likely prove to be inadmissible in court. So why waste time doing a “precautionary” inquiry, admitting that there is no reason to believe that anything will be found, over two weeks after Claudia went missing? I don’t pretend to be any sort of expert in police inquiries but it seems to me that something has gone amiss here.
An unwarranted search would never be permitted or even considered for a moment in private housing. The University has made this collective decision without even attempting to inform students. This right may be buried deep in the accommodation contract somewhere, but to enforce it without consultation will only encourage resentment towards both the University, for allowing such searches, and the local police, for carrying it out when it appears pointless and ultimately unhelpful. I am sure that everyone wishes the police well in their investigation into the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence. It’s just that an unwarranted invasion of privacy does not seem to be in any way helpful.
Loading ...
thank you for this. This really seems to be the most sensible approach to the topic I have read today.
“a handful of international students and postgraduates”.
A handful?! Wentworth College has nearly 500 beds, hardly a handful! Typical, unresearched undergraduate reporting.
well said. I’m an international student. at 9:30pm on a Friday evening a police officer rang the door bell and opened our door and let himself in. When I came down the steps he said he was with the police. Talk about sketchy. I was scared–I had no idea if this man was legit or some creep. Police don’t normally go around at 9:30 at night, nor do they enter the home without permission.
Nicely written, but mostly uninformed bunk.
That IS sketchy. If I was in your situation I would contact the IPCC, particularly if I had the officer’s name or number.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk
Anon (11.44pm) – that’s not to mention the 50 postgraduates living in Alcuin, 150 in Halifax….
Tom (I’m guessing you’re 11.27 anon too…)
Goodricke was searched. Not Wentworth, not alcuin. So yes, a handful of postgrads.
I couldn’t agree more, and I’m glad this side of the story has been postulated as I have found replies to the original story increasingly enraging as the day has gone on. Innocent people should not be guilt-tripped into dismissing this violation of (human rights or not) just basic privacy. Would I want my stuff looked through? No…Have I got anything to hide…No. There is no prerequite of a correlation here, surely.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s very sad that she has gone missing and I hope as much as everyone she is found safe and well..this being said it seems hardly likely this scattergun approach is more than appeasing the local community at the expense of the easy-targetable students.
Any evidence must be small and they surely are not looking in that much detail in the rooms. I doubt any student who gained entry to this university would be stupid enough to leave a murder weapon under their bed in their student bedroom over the Easter break.
As for minor infringements, this is a pretty empty and non-descript statement in itself…Are they just ignoring the material that breaches copyright then, or does that include drugs? Surely the police have a duty to not just ignore this kind of stuff? We are indubitably at the top of a slippery slope;if this works it would surely be the easiest way of solving crimes.
Geoff (12.17am).
No, I’m not anon.
An I’ll think you’ll find that Wentworth was indeed searched. And I know this, because I live there. Which means nearly 500 postgraduate students’ bedrooms.
Geoff: to confirm what Tom has already said, Goodricke, Wentworth and James colleges were searched.
Besides Wentworth, there is also a postgraduate block in James College.
Can someone please tell me what ‘liberties’ are beng infringed?
Also, do you honestly expect the university/authorities to contact every student before their room is searched?
As far as I see it, a ‘precedent’ has not been set here. This is an extreme case; a young woman who worked on campus, has gone missing and I think we need to get a better grasp of common sense and not try and provoke reaction out of it by bringing ideas of ‘human rights’ and ‘liberties’ into the discussion.
Let’s face it, this isn’t a regular occurence; it’s never happened in my 3 years here and I doubt long before that. If searching my room (though I don’t have one) meant ruling out a potential lead, then I think that’s a price worth paying.
Very good article which addresses most of the concerns without the vitriol of some of yesterdays comments.
I’ve already emailed the uni concerning this disturbing news and the potential ramifications of riding roughshod over laws and rights.
I’m puzzled about the comments regarding where was searched. Surely every room in every college, not to mention the Vice-Chancellors house and staff areas, had to be searched? Otherwise what was the point in searching 3 colleges?
Don’t forget Vanbrugh.
Reminds me of a few weeks ago the University of Connecticut put out an alert that a middle aged man, older than student age, had walked up to a female student in the campus car park and then turned round and walked away. Some people thought the UoC was overreacting, but others agreed that it was really weird behaviour, as though he was practicing stalking.
Maybe I’m missing the obvious, but why couldn’t the police announce their presence on campus in a way that would inform a majority of students and then conduct searches.
And don’t tell me they were worried about people destroying evidence – surely that could have happened anyway, if this report is even halfway accurate.
I’m just glad that as a mature student (in Leicester) I’ve never had to live on campus.
The title of this article is wrong. The police clearly did get permission to search the rooms.
Therefore no rights have been infringed (i challenge anyone to name, with reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Convention on Human Rights, any rights breach) and the university has acted responsibly. I believe you’ll struggle to find a section of either of these two acts that declares the police reaction illegal.
Also, READ THE CONTRACT:
You must permit anyone authorised by the University (this could include the Provost and Welfare staff, Facilities Manager, Security staff, Cleaning and other Cleaning Services staff, Estates staff and authorised contractors) to enter any part of your residence at all reasonable
times”
You signed it, people. If you’re seriously bothered, report North Yorkshire Police to the IPCC and deal with the response to your allegations. If you’re not prepared to report the police for ‘misconduct’, then you probably don’t care very much at all, and just enjoy a good rant.
Anon, perhaps reading further than the headline may be a good idea in future. The article isn’t about the police acting improperly, it’s about the University.
Authorised contractors are allowed access. The police are an authorised contractor.
The university therefore did nothing wrong by letting the police in. The contract says so.
Still, my comment about the title being wrong still stands – nobody barged into anywhere without permission.
RE: Dan
It could be argued that a precedent has indeed been set here as other crimes, though not identical, will happen in the future. When someone says that they were mugged and saw the attacker enter a code into a Derwent block (as a random example), would the police have permission to search the entire block for the missing goods? I’d assume that there would be good reason for it and they would indeed be allowed.
Would the police be allowed to search if they had suspicion of murder? If a random member of the public said that they thought they saw someone dragging a body into a James block then would the police be allowed to blitz through the college? Even though they had no evidence and the chances are on that it was just someone who passed out from alcohol.
I wouldn’t mind too much, personally, if the police went in. As long as the university staff don’t follow them and say “oh no! He has a second lamp – that’s against uni rules” or whatever then it’s fine. I’m more dubious over the “human rights” of someone whom the police find has a kilogram of cocaine whilst investigating something else (or the like) but I think that would be a bridge crossed to at the time. Whether we personally think that a precedent has been set, it could easily be argued that it is true and what’s important is that the university knows this and will not make the same assumptions in the future. A quick email out to let people know, a cursory confirmation with YUSU that it’s ok and the police can sweep through with less attention from the media.
What’s irritating in my mind is the fact that this story has bumped off attention from the story itself – by complaining about police/university action there is the potential to cause people to be less bothered about helping out where possible and the story itself has also knocked the picture of the vehicle from being the central picture on the homepage, which is a shame.
“the story itself has also knocked the picture of the vehicle from being the central picture on the homepage, which is a shame.”
I fail to see why that’s a shame. The owner of the vehicle came forward and has been eliminated from the investigation, therefore having the picture is of little help and the picture of Claudia is probably the most useful one to have.
Fair enough – didn’t know that it was no longer relevant :-\
Jason, the answer is no, they wouldn’t and no precedent is set at all because police use common sense. Having watched this debate unfold, I think the point I most take issue with is the title of this article. It’s misleading and sensationalist.
1) Police clearly didn’t ‘barge’ into the rooms. If we are to take this article at face-value, none of you poor freshers and post-grads. would have doors on hinges, and that would be ever so slightly unfortunate. Thankfully, I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case.
2) The police actually were given permission by the university. So no, it’s not without permission. Tenancy laws state that police have a right in “exceptional circumstances” to waver the need for a warrant for every individual room. This can be done prior to a magistrates’ permission because of the urgency of the investigation.
No, this will not create a precedent. At all. Police use common-sense in their decision making so are hardly going to barge into people’s rooms when someone’s laptop goes missing, are they Jason? Let’s cut the sensationalism, if nothing else.
I didn’t say that a precedent would be made – but that an argument could be made in favour. If people aren’t fussed about this, perhaps people wouldn’t be if they went into a block to search for evidence of something almost as serious… and then almost as serious as that… etc. I can see that the snowball effect could be argued but I would personally suggest that a) our police force is trustworthy enough to make reasonable judgments, b) our university made a mistake of not informing us as a result of a decision made in the holidays and c) this is a single, dreadful incident that made national headlines – how often will that happen at the university?
But the argument could still be made and it’s arrogant to assume that your own opinion is far more important than that of others. I hope it won’t create a precedent but it’s not impossible. We’ll just have to ensure that it doesn’t!