I agree with Mr. Green's comments regarding the propriety of staging a protest in response to the University of Rhode Island's new rules. Because we're not talking about the criminal justice system but rather an administrative arm of the state, procedural due process is really the only concern here with regard to the search rules and 're-indictment after acquittal' unless the police are using University officials as a conduit to avoid the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Whether the University has provided due process is governed by the law school classic Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). In Mathews, the Supremes stated that the factors to be considered are (1) the private interest in a pre-deprivation hearing (how much would the party be harmed by the government action, even if he had a strong case against the deprivation?); (2) the risk of error/value of additional procedures (is this an easy decision to make in isolation or on paper, or would additional procedures like the right to counsel or the right to cross-examine witnesses help avoid the risk of error?); and (3) the value to the government in a post-deprivation hearing (usually very high where there is a great chance the government will not be able to recover property erroneously given).

The University could probably make a strong argument in favor of its rules under this test under the same line of reasoning that justifies warrantless police searches due to exigency. The private interests are the broadly stated and vague interests in being secure in one's belongings, but this interest is probably almost entirely overcome by the fact that the dormitory rooms are owned and operated by the state and provided to the students as a service.

The so-called 'double jeopardy' problem is more vexing. In the criminal context, jeopardy attaches as soon as the jury is empaneled, but the procedures here are administrative in nature. The unusual procedure here would present an interesting hypothetical in an administrative law class, as it seems that the school could have an infinite number of chances to charge a student with an offense, provided some new evidence is found within a week of each acquittal. Double jeopardy comes into play in a civil context when an agency punishes a person or entity for the same conduct for which that person or entity has already been punished in a criminal setting. Likewise, a civil penalty that is meant to prevent or deter wrongdoing is 'punishment' for double jeopardy purposes. Multiple punishments for the same conduct is permissible if imposed in the same proceeding, but not if there are two proceedings in which punishment is imposed. The interesting question in the administrative context is whether jeopardy has ever attached when a person is acquitted during the first proceeding and not punished. I am not sure whether this question has been answered.