This is an excellent summary of the relevant law, and confirms several of my (admittedly non-legal) suspicions. To clarify, a wellness check is where another resident has called the police, and indicated they believe the resident is an imminent harm to themselves. A rare, but dangerous situation. And just knowing that the order is legally suspect should hopefully encourage some change - this policy regarding fire alarms has been on the ropes for awhile, and I think with the proper legal challenge, it will quickly fall away.

"disobeying the boss". Which boss? Police?

@axsvl77 The Residential Services Office, that has ordered him not to assist the police.

FYI, a "wellness check" is a situation where Person A stops communicating with Person B, Person B becomes concerned about the lack of communication, and Person B calls the police in Person A's jurisdiction asking them check that Person A is still alive & breathing. One can imagine that this comes up from time to time on a college campus.

... or in any other residential situation. But it seems unlikely that failure of the resident to respond to their door during a wellness check would be sufficient basis for a law enforcement officer's order to open the door to be lawful.

So... TL;DR: Wellness check - probably don't need to help the police; Fire Alarm - probably have to help the fire department; likely ongoing crime (hearing gunshots/screaming/etc) - probably need to help the police. If you aren't required to help them and it's an emergency situation (or perceived as one), you aren't allowed to stop them from kicking the door in. Effectively: not allowed to ignore a lawful order, but first you need to define "lawful order". Close?

"We have not established that the order is lawful, however, which is crucial." Another issue is not merely whether the order is lawful, but whether the RA has constructive knowledge that the order is lawful. I'm not sure what the mens rea requirement is, but it seems like asserting a lack of constructive knowledge would be a viable defense to conviction, but unfortunately would likely do little to prevent the arrest itself.

Aren't dorm rooms, apartments, hotel rooms, etc. considered places where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy? I.e. getting permission from the owner of the building, a RA, etc. isn't a legal substitute for getting a warrant. I don't remember the details of that, though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_v._California is what I was thinking of

@Delioth The responders to a wellness check would presumably be EMTs, which I think are part of the Fire Department in most places. There may also be provisions for police offers to respond if they're closer.

The RA probably isn't legally qualified to determine whether the order is lawful. What should they do -- assume the order is lawful, or call for the university's counsel to advise them?

@Barmar Where are you that EMT's do wellness checks? Everywhere I've seen, they're conducted by police since they aren't actually emergency visits - they're closer to a missing persons report where the reporter can't physically go check on them (most are called when one party stops contact with another; party B calls the local PD to make sure the other is still okay-ish... but it's not generally "immediate" timescale, since it'll be a week or better before party B even calls in for the check)

@Delioth I just assumed it would be EMTs, since if the person is non-responsive you'd want to start medical procedures ASAP.

I'm thinking in terms of trying to reach an elderly relative -- if they don't respond, a medical condition seems like the likely cause.

@Barmar While you would want that, the timescale wellness checks get called in on makes calling in emergency protocols infeasible. Most wellness checks will be called in after a week or better of no-contact (if there was an emergency, it's probably already resolved... probably poorly), and there's no substantial claim to put in emergency measures ("grandma didn't pick up the phone" isn't an emergency - there could be one, or grandma might just be really into her book for a few days with her hearing aid out). We generally avoid tying up emergency resources when there's no substance in a claim.

@Delioth OK, I clearly misunderstood the circumstances that would provoke a wellness check, I thought it was when the caller had a strong belief the person is in imminent danger (in a university setting, they might have taken drugs at an earlier party, and now they don't answer their door).

@Barmar Yeah - if there's a strong belief or reason, that's a call to 911 for emergency care. Wellness checks are a totally different thing (and in a university, could very well be from a parent whose child stopped calling weekly - there's 99.9% of the time no emergency, the whole thing isn't an emergency, but the parent wants peace-of-mind; it's low priority and won't take emergency resources)

"The police cannot just freely search a residence without permission." By a common-sense definition of the words, the fact that the police or emergency services have been called to the scene by somebody (or by some automatic device) is sufficient "permission" for them to investigate the situation when they arrive. The alternative is going to lead to an offence of "wasting police time" pretty quickly.

@alephzero The mere fact that someone called the police does not trump the warrant and probable cause requirements. If what that person (and any available others) tell the police furnishes probable cause, or reasonable grounds to believe that a person is in danger, then and only then the police have lawful grounds to enter without consent. If any call to police allowed them to "investigate" by entering a residence without consent, the 4th amendment would be a dead letter. If the resident called police or asked for help, that might well be implicit consent to entry.

Just an FYI: An entry into a residence or other private property by a law officer while performing a Wellness Check is a lawful behavior especially if the the person who is being checked is believed to be in imminent danger to himself or others. Mom calling local police because Bobby has not called in 3 days is just cause to enter Bobby's room without a warrent as determined by SCOTUS.

We actually do both types of wellness checks: for the former, more innocent type, we basically tell callers to get stuffed. The police won't even respond if there isn't a good reason to think the resident is in imminent danger, and we've turned away parents /at the doors/ because our residents are our tenants, and have a right to privacy (even from family!). The second type is where Campus Police gets a call that someone is in Imminent Danger, either because they're impaired, unconscious, or suicidal. Those are the ones RA's get roped into with the tagline "It's you, or this axe."

Can you check your second-to-last paragraph starting "The order from your supervisor..."? I think it should say "you cannot be arrested", but it's a small enough edit that I can't suggest it.

@hszmv [citation needed] I suspect you're dramatically overstating whatever case you're referring to.

@TKK: Emergency Aid Doctrine: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… Evidence is still subject to plain view doctrine. Also in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Rodriguez, SCOTUS held that evidence is admissible if entry is gained in Good Faith from consent of an "apparent authority" even if it was later discovered that such authorization could not have been authorized. I.E. An RA with a master key lets the cops into a dorm room while the cops mistakenly believe that the RA is a roommate.

@hszmv Sounds ripe for abuse.