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.

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.

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.

My thoughts are with the family at this time.

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!

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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

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. “

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.

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.