Confiscation of Student Property for the Entire Year

[soudy]

My question involves education law in the State of: pa

The other day I was reading through my school's student handbook. Under consequences for misconduct, the third offense of possession of an electronic device is confiscation, and release at the end of the year.

My question is, is this reasonable seizure for the school to confiscate property until the end of the year?

Keep in mind this is the third offense. The first two are more reasonable. 1 - Student picks up after school. 2 - parent picks up from school. To me this seems absolutely outrageous.

What do you guys think?

[BOR]

My question is, is this reasonable seizure for the school to confiscate property until the end of the year?

Keep in mind this is the third offense. The first two are more reasonable. 1 - Student picks up after school. 2 - parent picks up from school. To me this seems absolutely outrageous.

What do you guys think?

You use the word REASONABLE, this is the gravaman here. The 4th states no UNreasonable seizures.

Since this is the 3rd offense, I don't think it would rise to that level under the 4th?? Your state constitution may afford greater protection?

Has this ever been challenged before?

[cyjeff]

I think that you shouldn't do the crime if you can't do the time.

This has NOTHING to do with the 4th amendment to the constitution.

[soudy]

You use the word REASONABLE, this is the gravaman here. The 4th states no UNreasonable seizures.

Since this is the 3rd offense, I don't think it would rise to that level under the 4th?? Your state constitution may afford greater protection?

Has this ever been challenged before?

Is the 4th not protection against unreasonable seizure? Or am I misunderstanding it?

And no, it has not been challenged.

I think that you shouldn't do the crime if you can't do the time.

This has NOTHING to do with the 4th amendment to the constitution.

I don't plan on committing anything. Am I not allowed to question?

[cyjeff]

Is the 4th not protection against unreasonable seizure? Or am I misunderstanding it?

And no, it has not been challenged.



I don't plan on committing anything. Am I not allowed to question?

Don't be cute. This isn't a civics class.

This is not an unreasonable seizure. Just because a government organization seizes property and you don't want them to doesn't make it unreasonable.

Again, if you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.

[Baz744]

I think that you shouldn't do the crime if you can't do the time.

This has NOTHING to do with the 4th amendment to the constitution.

This has everything to do with the 4th amendment to the Constitution, assuming it's a state school doing the seizing of the property. It's legitimate legal question as to whether the state's seizure of the property is reasonable. It can be resolved by the courts, but it would be very expensive to do so.

My take, without doing actual research, is that:

a) the state's policy against electronic devices in classrooms is reasonable because it serves the legitimate interest of preventing classroom disruptions,

b) the state's policy of "3 strikes" before confiscating the property for the entire school year will probably be held reasonable by our increasingly conservative judiciary. I'm iffy on it myself. But right-wing judges are gonna uphold the authority figures over the miscreants most of the time.

[Ant29]

It's not outrageous at all. The school wants to make sure that everyone is in a learning environment without any distractions. You should always obey the rules in school and at home. How will you like it if you set up your own rules in your room and someone breaks one of them? You will be upset.
The first two offenses are just warnings.
It's sending a message to the student about the school not tolerating this type of behavior. School is school and home is home. Since electronics are used at home, where does it belong? AT HOME!