Police search of student accommodation ‘unacceptable’
Student accommodation on campus will be searched today by North Yorkshire Police despite lacking an official search warrant, in a move that has been described as breaching “basic human rights to privacy.”
The University has allowed North Yorkshire Police to enter student accommodation as part of the ongoing disappearance of Goodricke Chef Claudia Lawrence.
YUSU has strongly criticised the move, labelling it a “violation” of students’ personal space, and stating that “A warrantless, consentless search is unconscionable even in these circumstances.”
In a statement from President Tom Scott, the University was accused of “disregarding… students’ civil liberties and the process of law.”
“YUSU absolutely stands with the investigation team and Claudia’s family in their search, but also believe that the process of law, and our students’ basic human right to privacy, should be respected at all times,” the statement continued.
“We consider the process of indiscriminate searching, without warrant or explicit consent, entirely unacceptable. York City Council would not hand over the keys of its tenants’ houses without a warrant; neither should the University,” Scott added.
While students who were in their accommodation were able to refuse officers access, those who were out of their bedroom, or off-campus for Easter, were not given any warning or possibility to reject the request.
University Press Officer David Garner defended the lack of a search warrant, saying: “The Police indicated that a search warrant was only likely to be granted if there were reasonable grounds for believing that material evidence is on the premises. In this instance, the search is precautionary.”
Garner said: “The contract for student lets makes clear that we have the right to enter student rooms in exceptional circumstances or for welfare, and we regard this as such a circumstance. ”
The University has described the searches as “an extension of the routine searches that the Police are carrying out elsewhere in the city, and is intended to both discount the University as an area of concern and to reassure the University community. It is standard procedure in a missing person inquiry.”
“We have to balance the intrusion for students in residence with the personal safety of an individual who is a member of our staff and who works on our campus. We have consulted YUSU, the GSA, College Provosts and Student Support Office,” Garner added.
GSA President Dan Carr stated: “Whilst fully supporting the investigation into Claudia’s disappearance, the GSA Executive has expressed a number of concerns to police and the University Registrar about the manner in which the searches will be conducted.”
“Most importantly, the GSA Executive and I are wholly supportive of the investigation into Claudia Lawrence’s disappearance, and truly hope for her safe return. Our best wishes are with Claudia’s family and friends at this time,” Carr added.
YUSU are thought to have condemned the suggestion when it was first mooted by the University, who were responding to ‘a request from North Yorkshire Police to carry out a precautionary search’ and student
representatives were able to accompany Facilities Managers and porters through corridors during the search.
Lawrence disappeared on 18 March after leaving the Goodricke College after her shift in the canteen. Detective Superintendent Ray Galloway, head of the investigation, has said that the police still had no idea where she was despite “significant lines of inquiry”.
Galloway has recently suggested that the University would be a specific target of the investigation.
University Registrar and Secretary David Duncan said: “I know that the entire University community is concerned for Claudia’s wellbeing and we are doing all that we can to assist the investigation. Your co-operation in this aspect of the police inquiry is greatly appreciated.”
A University statement added: “The Police have indicated they will take no action against minor infringements of the law.”
YUSU are planning to lobby the University to introduce clearer regulations, as part of their role as landlords, to safeguard the right of privacy of their student tenants.
Student concerns regarding the search are being directed to Sue Johnston, Head of Campus Services on 07850-001757 or sjj7@york.ac.uk.
Any students with information regarding Claudia Lawrence’s disappearance are urged to contact North Yorkshire Police on 0845 60 60 247.
65 responses below. Comments are open.
Leave a Reply
Related Posts
Popular This Week
- Elections Night – Tim Ngwena re-elected president
- University criticised for allowing student to incur a personal debt of over £2,000 for campus event
- Exit polls reveal Hutchings to win Presidency
- It all ends tonight
- Success on two fronts for the University Boat Club
- Ngwena takes Presidency for second year running
Polls
Loading ...
This wasn’t consentless.
I had my room searched and it was made perfectly clear to me that I could deny them the right to search my room if I wished, before they even entered my room I had to sign a consent form.
I must say, it’s a bit sick to be jumping on this as a good story when it seems perfectly clear that the main aim of the police and the University is to get to the bottom of what has happened to Claudia Lawrence.
And me? I’m in London right now. How do I make it clear I don’t really want my room searched?
I understand the basic human rights issue, but who is going to refuse access in these circumstances? I hope, for the sake of Claudia and her family, the answer is noone.
I agree with you Jennifer, but it is still completely unacceptable from the part of the university not to inform students about it. Many are home for Easter and no email has been sent to them.
I would obviously not refuse access to my room, but gaining access without my permission and with no prior notification is simply unacceptable.
And if you’re not there to make that ethical decision, Jennifer?
What happened to being innocent until proven guilty? there’s a reason why police need to show EVIDENCE before getting a search warrant, and without one the Uni has obvisouly used some loophole in the contracts it has with us to let the police search through our belongings.
Imagine if they were doing this to your family home while you were on holiday? That’s EXACTLY the same situation.
I want Claudia to be found safe and sound as much as anyone, but breaching basic rights isnt the way to go about it
As tenants I’m pretty certain that UoY has full right to allow police to enter their premisces which would include the student accomodation. And if, as Post Grad says, you are allowed to deny entry and sign a consent form, then there is nothing wrong what so ever. Typical, poor attempt at student journalism I’m afraid, making a story out of nothing and having a chance to ‘protest’ at what is nothing illegal.
The subject of people being out for easter is a grey area, one that no doubt will favour the law of the land and therefore the investigation. If the police have been given access by the landlord they are in full right to enter. It’s not like this is some random guy getting permission to enter UoY property, it’s the damn police. Look at this in perspective!
Mr C,
As a tenant “You have the legal right to live in the property as your home. The landlord should ask your permission before he or she enters the premises.”
Page 16, ‘Assured and Assured Shorthold Tenancies: A guide for tenants’
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/138289.pdf
Oh, and criticise YUSU for ‘having a chance to ‘protest’ at what is nothing illegal’, not Nouse.
I’m fairly sure that police are only needing permission from the owner to search without a warrant. I really don’t care either way – if we can find her then it’s good and nobody should have anything to hide. Shame the uni couldn’t tell us in advance though.
I’m not usually one for random searches, but “The Police have indicated they will take no action against minor infringements of the law.” Clearly there are two issues at play here. The first is the human rights issue – which has been ably tackled by Jennifer. Secondly is the issue circulating around drugs.
Any student engaging in the active use of drugs is probably wary enough to hide such substances, as a result of the paranoia which very often accompanies keeping illegal substances on university accommodation. Any student which is naive enough to leave a menagerie of drub related paraphernalia around their room deserves to feel the subsequent consequences as a result of stupidity alone. No one who engages in drug use would openly advertise this fact by leaving drugs around their room; York is by nature an eclectic university and so often drug users are massively outnumbered by people who have little or no concept of drugs. Why would you openly advertise partaking in something seen as socially unacceptable by the majority of the student body? Stigma sticks.
I believe the term ’search’ is being applied loosely here. In a case like this the police will simply not have time to thoroughly search every room. The potential crime scene is huge, and as such police time must be carefully divided in order to cover as much ground as possible. In this case, YUSU has got it wrong. The cumulative welfare of students – who, as the police have already stated, WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED as a result of minor infringements, does not outweigh the immediate danger to the life of Claudia.
I’m just surprised this hasn’t happened sooner – for example the day after she was reported missing.
Edited by a moderator
I think it is safe to say that they are not conducting fingertip searches, just an overview, probably looking for the green rucksack and chefs whites previously mentioned as missing in other articles. It is not likely that the police will be tearing rooms apart or looking anywhere that could not contain these items. They are not looking for hairs/fibres etc for example.
I know this does not take away from the fact that those on holiday may or may not have had their rooms searches. Should the Uni have contacted those students not present? Of course. Could they, under the circumstances? Possibly.
In answer to “Imagine if they were doing this to your family home while you were on holiday? That’s EXACTLY the same situation. ”
I would absolutely want to be notified, but also would absolutely understand in the circumstances that this may not be possible.
The fact that students who were on campus were allowed to refuse officers entry under the law of the United Kingdom proves that the Police infringed those laws by entering rooms WITHOUT permission.
I agree that drastic measures need to be taken to help Claudia, and everything should be done to find out what is going on, but this is a diasterous handling of the situation by the University. An email, at least, would have softened student anger.
My problem isn’t with the Police, it’s with the University. As a tenant, I expect my rights to be upheld. Imagine the precedent this sets for future ‘inquiries’.
Surely if the searches aren’t legal, any evidence collected as a result wouldn’t be admissible anyway? In the Claudia Lawrence case it’s conceivable that something could be found which leads to other evidence, thus side-stepping the issue of admissibility, but if the only evidence of a “minor infringement” were in the student’s room then there’d be no basis for prosecution. Working on the basis that the searches aren’t legal (note that we’re very much in thought-experiment land here – I’m no expert on housing laws), any promise not to prosecute is vacuous – the police are just asserting that they won’t do anything that they wouldn’t be able to do anyway.
It’d be interesting to hear what anyone more familiar with the university’s 38-week accommodation agreement has to say on the matter. Given that the University regularly sends out email notifications about contractor access to rooms and takes silence on the matter to be agreement, legal differences aside, it’s interesting that they didn’t just follow that procedure on this occasion.
It is indeed the precedent I’m worried about. What’s next, allowing warantless TV licence searches?
Do we have proof that the police were entering rooms without permission?
From what I could tell of what was happening in my block they were only going in rooms where people were there to give permission.
Ah, my apologies – they have been searching rooms where students are not there.
But I would agree with jennifer on this one – why would anyone want to deny permission anyway. It’s a shame that this is during the easter break when the majority of students are not around to give consent, but I think the urgency of the inquiry must take precendence here.
the searches are far from fingertip, checks get made on your wardrobe and under your bed and any other ‘obvious’ places where things could be. I came into my room just to find a letter on my bed saying what had happened, why and also giving me details of who to contact if i was concerned. Clearly there are avenues to pursue if you are unhappy but c’mon guys, at the end of the day yes, rights may have been breached, but if claudia is found to have been abducted or worse, surely there are more serious rights of hers which have been breached. Yes we can get all hot and bothered about un-warranted searches but the principle upon which they are being made is genuine and i find it hard to believe anyone would refuse to have their room changed.
and chris…it’s unlikely that a precedent set in a serious missing person enquiry will be used to find out if the odd student is breaking tv regulation laws, there’s a world of difference in seriousness!
boo-hoo
stop crying about it, this is ridiculous!! If you have been smoking pot in your room, the police wont care and unless you are hiding Claudia in your wardrobe you have nothing to be worried about. Its not like 7 chavs who want to trash your room are admitted entry, its the damn police who are trying to solve a crime!
That does seem to be a somewhat drastic statement, even those who fear for student civil liberties the most should certainly realise that the search for a missing person would not set a precedent to open accommodation for anything other than something of similar importance.
Some major fallacies with this & some of the comments.
1. “If you’ve got nothing to hide, there’s nothing to worry about.” Whether I am guilty of anything or not, my privacy is still important. No, I don’t do drugs in my room or engage in any other sort of illegal activity, but I still have a right to assert to privacy and it’s a right I take very seriously. Just because I have nothing to hide does not mean I am willing to waive this right. Rights exist for a reason.
2. “The issue of finding the missing person is greater than that of personal privacy.”
I disagree. Yes, it’s a serious and potentially tragic case but again that does not mean my rights can be trampled over. The police need to make enquiries, I accept that, but channels exist to do it the proper way. Going about it in this manner helps no-one. No-one should ever have to forego personal rights in order for ‘the greater good,’ whether it be this case or ‘preventing terrorism.’ The old saying of giving up liberty for security works well here.
Disclaimer: I am not a student at York, but a friend of mine who is directed my attention to this. Whilst I’m not directly involved in the matter, the principles involved are important ones and thus concern me as well as everyone else. We cannot set a dangerous precedent by just surrendering our rights whenever the police or anyone else feels like it.
Well said Goodricke!!!
I would be rather amusing if the police turned someone over for having 8oz of coke in their desk drawer.
Difficult one…
why would someone deny access – maybe the current situation in their room would be embarrassing for them for whatever reason? Maybe for religious reasons?
I see why it is done but there must be other ways such as detection dogs which are trained to follow a persons smell (or if worse comes to worse the smell of a corpse). If one of the dogs would respond in a corridor or building block it would be entirely sensible to search the rooms without permission.
Given the current situation I would say it is going too far. Putting people under a general suspicion is really really bad.
It should be the other way round – the police is DENIED access unless the student approves so or if the student does not respond within 24 / 48 hrs after being asked.
Would be interesting to see if the practice would stand a court trial…
The University just made it far too easy for themselves here.
Question why it was not searched earlier – good question. I wondered about that as well as campus would be close to the crime scene (the lake was searched today (after about 2 weeks))
One could argue that it was done one purpose to avoid students denying access to their rooms.
I sort of hope that someone reports this incident to official bodies and the current situation with respect to the law is clarified.
If the university gave students a 24 hr warning it would in my view be entirely legal as a Landlord has the right to enter the property giving at least 24 hrs notice.
But 24 hrs notice are also difficult. If someone has something to hide they will use them to make any evidence disappear. However, IF someone living on campus was involved in all this and had something to hide and was in they would simply deny access to their room.
If crime in and of itself is so reprehensible, why should it be permissible to commit one to solve another?
There are degrees of “crime”. Abduction certainly beats technical problems with the law.
this is insane, what do the police hope to find from any of the rooms other than a large pile of coke? I think the notion of searching for Claudia Lawrence is just a front for a different agenda altogether.
I would put money on the fact that Claudia Lawrence never entered any campus dormitory building, nor was especially good friends with students beyond a mundane/dinnerlady fashion. I can’t believe the police would even consider that the perportrator could be a student, they obviously don’t know York very well, they should just take a look at all the scummy people that walk in the city centre and look in their houses.
Oh and “someone”, a dog to sniff around rooms? really? I hope you don’t become a detective one day. They haven’t even found the body, what use is a sniffer dog!?
I don’t live on campus any more, but I feel that I should be able to do whatever the hell I want in my own room as long as I’m not killing anyone.
‘One could argue that it was done one purpose to avoid students denying access to their rooms.’
If one was to argue that, one would be being ridiculous.
The searching of the lake is a pretty big opperation – not some you do if someone has been missing for a few days – but 2 weeks is quite a while and the longer she is missing the more realistic it is that she has come to some sort of harm.
The word ‘egocentric’ comes to mind. This is not some sort of ruse to catch a load of students stashing pot, it’s a urgent case.
So you think that a missing persons case which could quite possibly be an abduction is less of a crime than looking through peoples bedrooms? Why don’t we hang shoplifters? Put it in perpective and get a grip.
Chris, your privacy may be important to you, but I know how I would feel if it were a member of my family missing – God forbid – and if some (no offence) arrogant, trumped up pompous git started spouting that nonsence when Police were trying to locate evidence, I think another crime would be committed.
Someone suggested to me today that the Vice-Chancellor’s house (as well as few other University owned staff houses) is within the search perimeter. If this is the case, does anyone think the University would authorise an un-warranted search of his house without consent?
This Human Rights issue that is being banded about is a little tedious.
Article 12 states that ‘…no-one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…’
If you deem an important police investigation (which the university campus and its contents may provide clues towards) to be ‘arbitrary’ then by all means take them to court.
To Chris’ second point, I would disagree that ‘going about it in this manner helps no-one’. It could well help quite a few people. That’s the point, this is not an attack on students.
As the University quite rightly points out, this is entirely within regulations stipulated in student accommodation contracts. The response from YUSU comes across as hysterical and is extremely embarrassing for those students willing to make compromises in order to assist others in need.
The purpose of the law, and the legal requirement for a warrant, is to deem what is and is not ‘arbitrary’. It is not appropriate for the University to make that decision for each individual student, nor is it YUSU’s and that’s what they’re saying. It is for a magistrate as it would be for any other group of the community.
Sam,
You hit the nail on the head .. “for those students willing to make compromises…” Because there was no request, there has not been a chance to give (or not) consent to this case.
Imagine if you had a house in York and returned from work and it had been searched. Woud you be happy about this? However, if you were in and the police knocked, as I believe they have been doing in Tang Hall, to request a search – I’m sure this is something you would, as noted, be happy to make a compromise and agree to.
Regardless of the legal issues, some of the language being used here is incredibly callous and insensitive. ‘They haven’t even found the body’??? Shame on you. This investigation is ongoing and I cannot imagine the agony Claudia’s family must be going through. Whatever your views on the room-search please refrain from making flippant remarks like that.
Apologies, you’re completely right I did jump to a conclusion and my remarks were insensitive to her family and friends.
I don’t really see how looking through people’s rooms will solve anything, regardless of legal issues or privacy, I can’t think that they will have found anything productive and seem to be clutching at straws.
Are the uni contracts ASTs though? That text is taken out of context or it is misleading.
Legally (including under AST), tenants have the right to “quiet enjoyment”. Whilst this usually means that landlords should give reasonable notice before entering the property, they are allowed to enter in emergency situations and others may be written into any contracts between landlord and tenant.
@Anon
I was close to put you in the “idiot” box.. but apparently that would have been a bit too quickly.
I can understand why you worded it in the way above.. it is the thing that probably goes round in most heads even though people void to say it.
But I also fully get Kirty’s point.
Whilst anything gathered would be inadmissible as evidence, it would provide grounds for the police to get a warrant if they so wished.
@ anon – again
seems like the other post was deleted for whatever reason (censorship here?)
Have a proper read how detection dogs work before you blame others not knowing about things.
No, no censorship. Perhaps some technical mishap? I’m not sure which other post you refer to, but it’s certainly doesn’t show up in the backend.
anon, the police have a written agreement with the University that the searches are solely for gathering any evidence connected to the Claudia Lawrence case. The students were assured of this. You paranoia is completely unjustified or the result of misinformation.
Regarding your point about Claudia never entering a student dorm, etc. police suspect she may have been abducted, it’s not necessarily a matter of her entering anywhere of her own free will. The perpetrator could be anyone. Being a student doesn’t preclude you from being a psychopath or a criminal.
And finally, no-one ever denied you the right to do anything in your room other than those things restricted by your contract with the university.
@chris – thanks
I wondered – I was pretty sure I saw it earlier after I posted it. It was sort of the same comment into anon’s direction together with a long long monologue about the issue.
Weird.. well… it has been a long term..
At the end of the day, you can argue all you like but the searches are mostly over now and it’s VERY unlikely that if anyone were to take the police or the university to court that they’d win.
What we need to focus on is making sure this does not set a precedent for police invasion of student privacy, that those students distressed or concerned by the affair are properly cared for and informed, and that better procedures for such a situation are in place in the future.
This is stupid. Unless a person has something to hide there shouldn’t be a problem if the main aim is to find a missing person. If anyone i knew had gone missing on campus i’d want anywhere and everywhere checked and would find it highly inconsiderate that some people would refuse. I live off campus and allowed the police to seach my house because the more they know, hopefully the quicker they will find her. This doesn’t need to be another attack on university or cheap campus politics.
>> I live off campus and allowed the police to seach my house
Well that’s the problem isn’t it. Would you be happy if the police had come along, let themselves in on your landlords keys, took a look around and left, but the only way you found out it had happened is through your local newspaper – your landlord didn’t bother to tell you?
well, no. i said they could but my housemates who were at home obviously didn’t consent but also didn’t mind when informed.
ANON, that’s exactly the point. You, a fellow housemate, INFORMED them. The first that campus residents, like me, heard about it was here on Nouse! That’s awful University transparency. Imagine if Nouse shut down over Easter – I bet the Uni would have conveniently left it until the start of term to ‘justify’ the searches…
Sam, you’re actually completely wrong. Article 12 of the Human Rights Act gives individuals the Right to Marry. Article 8 gives individuals the right to Private Life including privacy of their “home and correspondence”. This is admittedly a qualified right, where a breach may be justified for what is deemed to be “necessary in a democratic society”. Such qualifications include “the protection of disorder of crime”. However, it must be pointed out that this qualification is interpreted in the strictest sense by the courts and is wholly unlikely that the police would be able to justify their actions unless they could prove they had strong evidence that suggested Miss James was being held captive in one of the rooms.
A second point that is important to clarify is that s1(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 states that a lease is “absolute in possession” meaning that the landlord (in this case the University) has no right to access or to grant access to leased rooms.
A minor error on my part – it is Miss Lawrence not Miss James. Sorry.
“The contract for student lets makes clear that we have the right to enter student rooms in exceptional circumstances or for welfare, and we regard this as such a circumstance. ”
It’s in the contract. No breaches of any law at all if the contract states that this is allowed.
This is awful car-crash journalism . We have a dire situation where a staff member is missing and some of you are worried about finding some pot in your room. Get some perspective. There’s no human rights breach here, the contract allows university personnel (college tutors, provosts even cleaners) into rooms, this arrangement includes emergency services.
To those who are moaning:
YOU signed a contract allowing certain forms of entry to your room. (do you moan when the cleaners come in when you’re out?)
If you don’t like it, terminate the contract and move out. But read the damn thing before you criticise. Conditions are on the web.
Otherwise stop having a go at the police and the university. YUSU should shut up and stop playing politics with a devastating issue. Any excuse to have a go at UoY it seems…
And if anyone gets coke confiscated, you deserve it.
The residents handbook states
Right of entry
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 and where practicable on reasonable notice for any purpose connected with the Residency Agreement or its operation. Wherever possible, the University will give a minimum of 24 hours notice if access is required to your room. However, it should be noted that when you report a repair you should expect maintenance staff to attend to the repair in
the near future and specific notice of their time of visit may not always be possible. Access may also be necessary on urgent welfare grounds.
No where above does it state that ‘exceptional circumstances’ may also allow visitors or searches.
Additionally, I’m not sure how a police search of the room is “for any purpose connected with the Residency Agreement or its operation. “
“No where above does it state that ‘exceptional circumstances’ may also allow visitors or searches.”
I just said that in one of the other 2 treats..
Uni can allow access but they never have/had the control about who is allowed to search you personal belongings.
If they open the door to look if a tied up person is held in the room – ok – fine. But when they go through your stuff – no way
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”
Anyone authorised by the university clearly means the police. They are an authorised contractor, after all.
The police and university acted lawfully and properly with regards to the contract. Plain and simple.
This paragraph completely kills off all your silly arguments about rights breaches and privacy laws.
Some of the selfishness displayed on here is astounding. If someone from your family went missing I’m sure you’d be up in arms if a stuck up tosser from the university refused entry to a premise on grounds of liberty. If you really want to see breaches of liberty and rights, check out amnesty international. They wouldn’t bat an eyelid at this.
>> If someone from your family went missing I’m sure you’d be up in arms if a stuck up tosser from the university refused entry to a premise on grounds of liberty
You’re completely missing the point. The people who are complaining aren’t saying they would not have consented to allow their room to be searched, but rather that they should have been informed, either before or after that they were searched.
General points:
- I’m pretty sure standard tenancy regulations don’t apply to student accommodation and that the university has the right to enter students‘ accommodation. Although at this time of night I can’t be bothered to find a copy of the agreement I signed in order to check the accuracy this statement.
- In Goodricke we get notified politely by Gill MacDonald in advance of any fire safety checks, or maintenance work which require access to students’ rooms. Also on occasion when there have been firms doing work for the university in the area that might’ve otherwise aroused suspicion or concern amongst students.
- In response to a couple of comments as to why we haven’t been notified in the same way about these searches – what the hell would be the point of the search if they gave notification of it for someone to dispose of incriminating evidence?!?
- I was on campus when the lake searches were taking place, although I didn’t see them. The lake is vast. I hope that the searches, which must have been restricted to a small area were based on some evidence rather than to satisfy the media, and television viewers that the police were actually doing something -albeit something pessimistic.
- In the above report I think the following extract is very good. I’m not surprised Nouse, specifically Henry James Foy, included a statement from the ‘University Press Officer David Garner’ which seems to contradict itself.
“ University Press Officer David Garner defended the lack of a search warrant, saying: “The Police indicated that a search warrant was only likely to be granted if there were reasonable grounds for believing that material evidence is on the premises. In this instance, the search is precautionary.” “
- I agree with whoever said that the police seem to be clutching at straws.
Regarding another statement from the article:
“ The University has described the searches as “an extension of the routine searches that the Police are carrying out elsewhere in the city, and is intended to both discount the University as an area of concern and to reassure the University community. It is standard procedure in a missing person inquiry.” “
Process of elimination is a very poor technique for locating a person.
I second the point raised in ‘Anon, April 3, 2009 at 6:50 pm’ regarding whether the Vice-Chancellor’s house (as well as few other University owned staff houses) should be considered for searches.
- I don’t mind the police having a ‘quick’ look in my room in order to assist in searching for Claudia Lawrence. ’Quick’ being the description by someone else that it would be in wardrobe and under the bed rather than thorough search of possessions. Although I concede that I don’t have any drugs or hedonic implements in my room, anybody who does have them should consider concealing them considering the cleaners and maintenance staff who go in rooms anyway. If these are ‘quick’ searches then I don’t see what the difference is.
Having thought a little more, the statement I nentioned earlier:
“ The University has described the searches as “an extension of the routine searches that the Police are carrying out elsewhere in the city, and is intended to both discount the University as an area of concern and to reassure the University community. It is standard procedure in a missing person inquiry.” “
could instead indicate that the police are simultaneously following many different leads. I would rather hope this is the case rather than unguided searching.
Someones daughter is missing- they have no idea where she is. I don’t think we can all sit here and pretend to know how that feels.
I live off campus, but I would be more than willing to allow a police officer into my halls of residence to check for evidence. If you have nothing to hide then why are you bothered? the police need to search as many places as possible to eliminate areas- it just so happened that our campus came under the search radius- how can they gain permission when a lot of students aren’t even there? In the grand scheme of things, I think for the sake of Claudia Lawrence and her family, the police should be allowed to search wherever they feel is necessary in order for this investigation to be as thorough as it can be.
My thoughts are with Claudia and her family at what must be an awful time, I hope they get a break through with something soon.
If you look further up in the comments, you can see that xyz had their room searched and they explained that the police looked under his bed and in his wardrobe and also that they left him a note to explain what happened and what should happen if he wants to complain.
All these comments saying they looked in rooms and didn’t say anything, are these just random comments or actual 1st hand accounts? I think this has snowballed out of control.
Also further up in the comments it was noted that police are propbably looking for the phone, rucksack and chef uniform, NOT suggesting that Claudia is being held captive by a student. Perhaps they have bought an item from someone, or found it on campus.
Read back on previous comments….
Also “You’re completely missing the point. The people who are complaining aren’t saying they would not have consented to allow their room to be searched, but rather that they should have been informed, either before or after that they were searched.” – Perhaps time is of the essence in a missing persons case and with regard to letting them know after, see notes above.
“Perhaps time is of the essence in a missing persons case” – yes, time is an important consideration, but seriously, 5 minutes to ask a college administrator to send out a bulk e-mail, is that really an issue?
As an interesting aside, I checked my contract today (not living on-campus) and my landlord is allowed to enter without my permission for “emergency circumstances”. If the university contracts (though I definitely didn’t get given any contract when I lived on-campus) have similar clauses then the whole thing is probably fine anyway.
It would be nice to be told by the university though – I wonder how many students have had their rooms searched and still don’t know!
I am currently off campus for easter, I would not have had a problem with the police searching my room, however, if students present had the opportunity to refuse entry, surely the university could have emailed me, giving me the opportunity to call and refuse entry to mine. I understand that this is considered a matter of emergency, but it doesnt seem to take them 2 seconds to forward us all emails about students doing surveys, so im sure they could be prompt in sending one about access by the police to rooms, even if it is not a matter of illegality, it still would have been nice.
My thoughts are with the family at this time.
As an ex York student I can’t understand some of the things I have read here.
Especially the comment inferring it could nt possibly be to do with someone from Campus. Whilst a very enjoyable experience at York believe it not but there are some bad uns in every part of society.
Legal or not a thorough search of the campus – including rooms was the least you would expect.
The comment on you would talk to a cook just smacks of the one thing I hated about Uni – arrogance and an uncaring attitiude – I made friends with many staff, my mates worked their holidays as staff
Process of law of course is important – but to me and any right minded person not in this case.
I hope we have a bright outcome to this.
Typical reaction as usual. What happens if you are away from your room and there is a need for security/porters to enter your room because for eaxmple the room above has a water leak and it’s coming through your ceiling, are we now saying they shouldn’t be allowed in too because they are invading your privacy? Should we expect them to contact us first to ask for permission?
A water leak coming through the ceiling is of course not something I would, as a resident, have an issue with. A search of accommodation without a warrant, or notification, is.
Let me preface this with the following – i am not a UoY student. Whilst this is clearly a terrible situation one can’t help but feel that the police are beginning to find search warrants unneccassery (see Damian Green case of 6months ago). Where will this invasion of civil liberties end? We are quickly becoming a society where it is guilty until proven innocent, not vice versa as the case should be.
It may have been acceptable had police ensured they had contacted the relevent person and a guarantee that anything found which is illegal but unrelated to the case would be entirely overlooked, who decides what is a minor offence?
The University have made an appauling decision here, and should know that the police have no legal grounds to conduct a search without the permission of the tenant, or a warrant from the requisite authorities.
Had my University undertaken such an action, i would be highly annoyed and seeking legal advice on if there were any legal roads i could take.
Yes, the woman who is missing needs everything done to find her, but even this must be within the bounds of british law, and i’m sure very few people would object to such a search, but they have to be consulted beforehand.
British law allows (and has for many years allowed) the police to enter/search a premises without a warrant with the permission of the owner/occupier (in this case, although there has clearly been debate, the university’s accommodation contract does seem to give the university power to allow the police into rooms in these circumstances). And the police frequently (and again, have for many years) take a look around a property without a warrant if they can get permission from the owner/occupier – applying for warrants not only takes up possibly valuable time (important if one is facing the clock), it is also time that judges and courts could be using on other matters. The only thing that’s changed is that today we are all more aware of it and objecting to it, which is all to the good – provided we don’t assume this is a change of police conduct, rather than a continuation.
As a 1st year student with a 33 week let, this does not directly affect me, in that the room is not technically mine over easter anyway. However I am shocked at the University’s total lack of consideration for its students, and it worries me that this particular act of discourtousy could have repercussions in the future.
Although I am entirely sympathetic to Claudia and her family, I feel that it would have taken the university absolutely no effort at all to send an email stating the search was going to take place. From what has already been quoted of the accommodation handbook (although I am sure I was never given a contract to sign, despite what people have said on here), it seems to me that a student does not necessarily have the right to refuse the police’s search, having been given permission by the university, however it is clear to me that students affected should have been informed that the search was taking place, just as they would for a fire safety check or any other contractor entering the building. This would have shown a degree of thought for the students, rather than this total indifference.
However, although I have stated that students probably don’t have the right to refuse this search, if those who were present were given this right, then it becomes a different matter entirely. Being present at the time does not grant you different rights to your own property than someone who isn’t.
I understand the many comments suggesting that we should put things in perspective and understand that a young woman’s life is a risk, which I of course do, I simply feel that the university’s attitude to its students is somewhat worrying, and would hope that this does not allow for future instances of student’s considerations (I do no use the word “rights” here) being ignored.