Principal refuses to give student’s iPhone 6 back to her parent, offers a flip phone as compen

[pacodever]

It meets the elements for Trespass to chattel so that could be a possibility. The school would likely argue that it was a lawful/authorized dispossession of the property if perhaps the parent signed a consent form. I seriously doubt school policy is an adequate legal basis for depriving the parent of the use of their property, and I'm not sure what other legal basis the school would have for doing so.

There is also the question of immunity, if the school argued that depriving the phone was a governmental act. This might work for the child, but is a stretch for the depriving the phone from the parent. And it would depend on if the principal, was in fact, complying with that school policy.

Regardless, depriving the owner, in this case, the parent, of several hundred dollars worth of their personal property in addition to their right enjoy that property and wasted contract expenses is not an appropriate punishment for the child's in-class disruption. I can't believe some of you are actually arguing this.


http://trespass.uslegal.com/trespass-to-chattel/

[Christian Liberty]

As I see it, the school would have been well within its rights to take that IPhone out right in front of the mom, set it on the desk, and smash it with a hammer while she watched.

It's a consequence of disrupting a class with your IPhone.

Really? This seems like a really statist position to take to me.

[pacodever]

It meets the elements for Trespass to chattel so that could be a possibility. The school would likely argue that it was a lawful/authorized dispossession of the property if perhaps the parent signed a consent form. I seriously doubt school policy is an adequate legal basis for depriving the parent of the use of their property, and I'm not sure what other legal basis the school would have for doing so.

There is also the question of immunity, if the school argued that depriving the phone was a governmental act. This might work for the child, but is a stretch for the depriving the phone from the parent. And it would depend on if the principal, was in fact, complying with that school policy.

Regardless, depriving the owner, in this case, the parent, of several hundred dollars worth of their personal property in addition to their right enjoy that property and wasted contract expenses is not an appropriate punishment for the child's in-class disruption. I can't believe some of you are actually arguing this.

http://trespass.uslegal.com/trespass-to-chattel/

[UPDATE]

Here's Arkansas's take on a case that went all the way to their Supreme Court:

The deciding factors? Three key documents:

“School District Rule 22,” which prohibited possession of cell phones on school property and listed discipline for violations, including “confiscating the phone for two weeks”
“Parent-Student Statement of Responsibility,” signed by Koch and his father, acknowledging their understanding of school rules, and
Page 34 of the district’s “Parent/Student Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline,” which outlined appropriate grievance processes.
Lesson learned: This district’s clear policies offered guidance to school officials. Because of this, the teacher and assistant principal knew the appropriate steps to take. And, as is often the case, complete documentation showed the court that the policy was followed — down to the letter.

http://educationtechnews.com/was-cel...nfiscation-ok/

Koch v. Adams, 2010 Ark 131 (2010):

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday rejected arguments by a Pulaski County high school student that the confiscation of his cell phone was unconstitutional. Anthony Koch, a student at Sylvan Hills High School in the Pulaski County Special School District, sued his teacher, Nancy Adams, and Principal Danny Ebbs.

But the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion ruled against Koch.

"We ... refrain from interfering with the school district's decision about the best punishments to employ to enforce the cell phone policy,” Justice Robert L. Brown wrote for the court.

The court said Koch cited no source for the contention that a specific law must be in place before a taking by the government may occur. Instead, Koch relied on the "general proposition” in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars "unreasonable search and seizure,” the Supreme Court said.

http://www.apsrc.net/NewsLetter/News...=36&p2=Y&Sort=

. . . Koch assumes, without citation to authority, that he had a protected property interest in the cell phone at school that entitled him to due process. Having a property interest in the confiscated property is a clear prerequisite before due process attaches . . . Because Koch has not developed the issue of whether he had the requisite property interest on school grounds, we will not address this point.

Full Opinion:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ar-suprem...t/1522941.html

[BV2]

$#@! everything about this. So the principal has made an overt admission of theft. This has nothing to do with schools needing to act during exigent circumstances. Arbitrary Border Place is $#@!ed.

[mad cow]

Outlaw public schools.A private school can demand any policy they want in regard to cell-phones or anything else and the parents can either sign the contract or not.

[Christian Liberty]

Outlaw public schools.A private school can demand any policy they want in regard to cell-phones or anything else and the parents can either sign the contract or not.

I'd agree with this, but it would seem that barring a contract that would allow it, refusing to give the phone back should be considered theft.

[mad cow]

I'd agree with this, but it would seem that barring a contract that would allow it, refusing to give the phone back should be considered theft.

Oh,I agree.The parent is still paying $xxx/month for the phone and can't use it.

However,a private school could say-"If your kid brings a phone to school we will bust it up with a sledge hammer"and the parents can either agree or not.
.A public school takes your money (or anybody else's,even if they have never had any kids or grandkids to the tune of 4 to 5 figures a year,decade after decade after decade,even after it is several multiples of $100,000 and will keep on seizing this cash until the day you die and then probably seize more from your estate,ask me how I know) and dictates what the contract you never signed reads.

[TheTexan]

It's probably safe to hold the school to the same asset forfeiture rules that PD's use. Can the parents prove the phone wasn't used in the commission of a crime?

[Christian Liberty]

Oh,I agree.The parent is still paying $xxx/month for the phone and can't use it.

However,a private school could say-"If your kid brings a phone to school we will bust it up with a sledge hammer"and the parents can either agree or not.
.A public school takes your money (or anybody else's,even if they have never had any kids or grandkids to the tune of 4 to 5 figures a year,decade after decade after decade,even after it is several multiples of $100,000 and will keep on seizing this cash until the day you die and then probably seize more from your estate,ask me how I know) and dictates what the contract you never signed reads.

Agreed.

[Weston White]

Regarding the above quoted case I would like to point out the following points of concern:

The school's confiscation violates the owner's rights of possession; as non-consented possession requires the aggressor to prove a greater right of possession than the property owner, even when the latter is in the wrong.

In his unrelated state, man has a natural right to his property, to his character, to liberty, and to safety.

— Justice James Wilson, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals", (1790)

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...f-individuals/

The court seems to have avoided answering the question as to the justness of the school's taking policy and how that it is not unreasonable to take a student's property away as a "seizure" for one-second let alone two-weeks. May the police seizure your car merely through their own departmental policies, or enter your home, or search your car, or access your cellphone or computer/laptop, or seize such devices for whatever period of time they determine? Surely, we would all pray not.

And property interest is invested in the cellphone as: (1) a protective communications device during emergencies and for providing family unity and coordination, (2) the cellphone represents a pseudo-trust (personal property belonging to another who is contractually obligated) possessing a high monetary value, (3) the confiscation is unjust with respect to the supposed violation, in that the parent is under contract with the cellphone provider, but they and their child are unable to benefit from the use of the cellphone for a prolonged timeframe (Fifth Amendment violation), and still further should the cellphone become damaged, lost or stolen while in possession of the aggressor, it is likely the parent will be left with the replacement costs, lest they the sue the aggressor for damages, then racking up vastly larger bills and further loss of personal time.

Fifth Amendment (private property having been seized under public administrative policy):

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Regarding added universal service fees for cellphone customers and the benefit of a child retaining possession a cellphone while away from their family:

The federal program dates back to 1996; it was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act did a number of things, including increasing internet access to doctors and patients in rural hospitals (for consults with specialists); subsidizing internet and phone coverage for schools and libraries and providing free or subsidized coverage for families who can’t afford it so that they have links to emergency and government services.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphi...e-cell-phones/

[Henry Rogue]

Civil forfeiture.