|
FN20. Logiodice
v. Trs. of Me.
Cent. Inst.,
296 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2002). Other
jurisdictions employ similar formulations of the “state action” test. See, e.g., Nemser, 807 A.2d at 1291-93 (finding no agency
relationship between campus and local police because there was no “inducement”
or “agreement” that campus police conduct drug searches on behalf of local
police); People v. Boettner, 362 N.Y.S.2d 365,
368-69 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1974), affirmed, 376 N.Y.S.2d 50 (N.Y. App. Div.
1975) (finding no agency relationship where state police “neither expressly nor
impliedly requested” that campus police conduct a search of defendants’ rooms,
and where there was no “close and continuing relationship” between campus police
and local/state law enforcement).
|