How long are schools allowed to confiscate items from students? According to this question and the corresponding answer, schools are legally allowed to confiscate items from students. This is not considered theft, as the intent is not to permanently take the item away from the student. My question now is, how long is a school allowed to confiscate items from a student? "Common Sense" would indicate something like until the end of the class, or the end of the school day - or more formally, until the student leaves the school building. However, I recall teachers confiscating phones until the end of the week, and even refusing to hand them back upon the parent's request, citing that "the student would just play on their phone again anyways". I can't imagine that this is legal, or that a teacher has the authority to confiscate an item for longer than necessary. I am mostly interested in answers regarding Austria, but answers regarding other jurisdictions are accepted as well. Furthermore, I am talking about "general" items in a student's rightful possession. This excludes things like cigarettes, alcohol, weapons, etc., which may by themselves warrant different procedures.
According to regulation 373/1974 § 4(4) (which I presume is still in force due being amended in 2020), confiscated items must be returned by the end of Unterricht (unsure of exact translation, either end of class or school day): Gegenstände, die die Sicherheit gefährden oder den Schulbetrieb stören, dürfen vom Schüler nicht mitgebracht werden. Derartige Gegenstände sind dem Lehrer auf Verlangen zu übergeben. Abgenommene Gegenstände sind nach Beendigung des Unterrichtes bzw. der Schulveranstaltung oder der schulbezogenen Veranstaltung dem Schüler zurückzugeben, sofern es sich nicht um sicherheitsgefährdende Gegenstände handelt. Sicherheitsgefährdende Gegenstände dürfen nur dem Erziehungsberechtigten – sofern der Schüler volljährig ist, diesem – ausgefolgt werden, wenn deren Besitz nicht sonstigen Rechtsvorschriften widerspricht. This translates to (translation by @MechMK1): Objects, which are a threat to safety or disturb the school proceedings, may not be brought along by the student. Such objects have to be handed over to the teacher upon request. Such taken objects have to be returned after the end of the end of the lesson or the course, or the school-related event, as long as the object is not a threat to safety. Objects which are a threat to safety must only be handed over to the parents or legal guardians - or, if the student is of age, the student - if the ownership of said object is not unlawful. Thanks to Vienna lawyer Dr. Johannes Öhlböck who wrote an article pointing me to the regulation. I'm not fluent in German and I can't find an explicit definition of Unterricht in the associated laws. Google currently translates it as lesson, but Duden has a broader definition close to &quot;scheduled, regular instruction by a teacher&quot; and the Vienna city website claims cell phones can kept until end of day. Interestingly during research I found a Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) article stating that in 2017, a Berlin administrative court allowed confiscation of a cell phone through a weekend.
The First Amendment is absolutely relevant to the question (in a public school which is subject to the First Amendment, because it is a governmental entity), although it isn't the end of the story. Generally speaking, a school can establish reasonable rules and regulations for its students and punish those violations with punishments such as detentions, suspensions, expulsions, changes in grades on assignments or in classes, denial of eligibility to participate in extra-curricular activities or to receive school honors, and similar sanctions. Generally speaking, violations of school rules cannot result in criminal punishments or civil liability not authorized by other laws, and profanity is something that cannot be prohibited – at least in cases involving adults. Minors have First Amendment rights to express opinions, although they are diminished in a school setting, and while literally speaking profanity is part of the content of speech, it is often analyzed as a permissible &quot;time, place or manner&quot; restriction instead, especially when minors are present. Profanity also covers a range of conduct. Schools have the greatest authority to regulate speech when it is disruptive to the orderly operations of the school, or threatening. Profanity used to provoke or threaten someone, such as the use of a racial slur or an offensive statement about someone's family, could potentially be punished severely based not simply on what was said but because it is part of a larger context of aggression. In contrast, schools might potentially exceed their legal authority to prohibit profanity defined in such a way as to prevent students from a particularly ethnicity from speaking in ordinary non-provocative terms to each other. The N-word directed at an African-American student in a predominantly Hispanic school by someone reputed to be a gang leader with an intent to provoke or threaten the African-American students would be well within the school's right to prohibit and punish severely. But punishing two African-American students who are friends for using the same word in a friendly context like &quot;Hey, N- how you doing?&quot; &quot;I'm doing better than fine, N-&quot; might even be construed as discriminatory if punished, and deemed to be beyond the authority of the school to prohibit at all, or with anything more than the most minimal sanction. Limitations on profanity are also more suspect from a First Amendment perspective when used in connection with conduct that is intended to be expressive, such as an art project, or a monologue chosen for a drama class from published stage plays, novels and poems, or when used in connection with protests and political activity. Often the standard by which school officials are judged in court when a school punishment for some conduct or another is challenged, is whether the school officials abused their discretion and part of that analysis is proportionality. A school official can be comfortable that issuing a detention to a student, or assigning the student to some undesirable task like picking up litter from a school yard during recess for saying something like &quot;shit&quot; or &quot;fuck&quot; will not be judged to be an abuse of discretion. But, a court might very well overturn a school's exercise of its discretion to punish a student if a student were expelled for saying something like that in a manner that was not part of a more pervasive pattern of disregard for authority and disruptive behavior. Another factor that influences whether a rule like a ban on profanity is an abuse of discretion to punish in a particular manner is the extent to which there was advanced notice that this was prohibited. If the school has a clear rule that is familiar to everyone in the student body stating in advance what is prohibited and what punishments are authorized under particular circumstances, that rule is more likely to be held not to constitute an abuse of discretion, than a severe punishment of a student who has no real advanced warning that the conduct is not allowed. Similarly, the intent of the student is relevant. If a student uses profanity or an offensive term (e.g. &quot;fag&quot;) not knowing that it is considered profane or offensive, either out of ignorance perhaps because other students misled him or her about what a word meant, anything more than a minimal punishment would be an abuse of discretion, while even relatively minor use of profanity, calculated and intended to have great negative effects in the context in which it was used, resulting in a severe punishment, might not be an abuse of discretion. In between, and perhaps justifying only an intermediate punishment, at most, without constituting an abuse of discretion, would be a use of profanity that isn't naive or innocent, but isn't calculated for maximum negative effect either, and just &quot;pops out&quot; based upon what is normal in a student's home life or previous experience even though it is contrary to the norms of this particular school and the student would have realized that upon further reflection. Is there detailed case law or a statute that spells this out, in great detail? No. Some of this is embedded in custom and social norms that are familiar to judges (usually in the context of what was historically known as a &quot;certiorari petition&quot; arising from a local government quasi-judicial decision). But, I do think that this answer relatively accurately captures how a seemingly vague &quot;abuse of discretion&quot; review standard for school disciplinary actions for students would be likely to play out in real life, and those expectations absolutely do influence how school administrators and teachers impose discipline, in practice.
It is not possible for someone to forfeit their rights because the GDPR is compulsory law. In the EU, laws can be regulatory or compulsory. In case of an agreement, regulatory laws can be set aside, if both parties agree on that. But compulsory laws cannot be set aside. Of course laws can also be partly compulsory. For example provisions which cannot be changed in disadvantage of a consumer. So there is freedom of contract, but it's freedom is reduced by law for the common good or for example to avoid misuse of bargaining power. In particular consumer related laws are often compulsory because it has little power against the other parties. Companies can have their negotiations done by lawyers, so they can make a well informed an well negotiated decision. As an extreme example, you cannot kill someone, even if that person has given you written permission. See also "Peremptory norm" on wikipedia for international law examples.
This is roughly accurate, but there are nuances. The real US issue with teacher-led prayer is that a teacher's authority can make it effectively coercive, or seem so, even if this is not intended by the teacher. (And in the past it has often been so intended, by teachers and administrators who thought it was good for children to be required to engage in prayer.) There is no ban on a teacher praying privately. Similarly, there is no ban on private prayer by a student. Indeed such a ban (for either teacher or student) might violate the free-exercise clause of the US constitution. Of course a student should not be engaged in prayer when s/he is supposed to be doing classwork, but there are times during the school day available for prayer. However, public, student-led prayer can also be an issue. For example, at some schools it was customary to have such public prayer at the start of football games, or school assemblies. This official designation of a moment or occasion for prayer was challenged as an endorsement of prayer by the school, and as coercive to those who did no want to participate, but might feel strong social pressure to do so. The point is that the school, as an aspect of government, and one where students are required to attend at that, should not make prayer an expected norm, resulting in singling out those who do not conform. But no US law or court decision has ever forbidden private prayer in schools by students, or indeed by teachers.
More generally, the university gets to set whatever rules it wants, unless there is a law limiting what it can do. For example, in the US a government university (qua arm of government) cannot require you to have a particular religion or profess a particular creed, but a private one can. An employer could require you to be in your office from 9 to 5, even though it is legal to not be in an office from 9 to 5. The general principle is that the institution can set its own rules for operation, unless those rules violate the law. Generally, the owner of property has the right to say how it can be used. It is quite common for universities to have variable policies regarding access to their books (e.g. "anybody can walk in and do things with the volumes, which are out in the open, except they have to have borrower's permission to take it out of the building" to "you cannot enter at all, and must have special permission to inspect the book -- nobody can take the books out of the building"). My experience is that UK libraries have a tighter rein on their holdings than do US universities (the sampling problem here is non-trivial). In some cases, the absolute control of the property owner is somewhat overridden by law, especially if the institution is a state-run university (not in the UK). Another possibility is that access to books is a contractual right (some kind of "terms of service" that you and they are bound to). Even in the case of US state universities, I cannot imagine a government having a law declaring the right to copy books to be such a fundamental right that a university cannot deny you that right. The most likely scenario for enforcement is as a contractual matter. A complete analysis of the relationship between the individual and the institution would be way too broad for here, but here is a sample of the questions that could arise. What is the source of your right to access books? Perhaps you are employed as a faculty person: do you have a contract? Can you be fired for breaking rules: are there any limits on what acts can lead to firing? What procedures if any are specified for termination, and what avenue of internal appeal exist? The government would not overrule the institution's decision unless they didn't follow the contractually-governed procedures for termination. Apart from the legal question, a perfectly coherent reason to prohibit scanning books whose copyright has expired is that the act of scanning them may damage the book.
So many things were not addressed, so a precise answer is not possible. But to try to raise the proper questions you should be thinking about: Should the school have known the permission slip was forged? Was the forgery particularly bad, and the school was lax in not examining it? Did the student have a history of forging slips that the school should have been aware of? If the school was negligent in accepting an obviously bad signature, they may find their exposure is increased. If the school had no reasonable way to know the slip was forged, they were acting reasonably in taking the student on an excursion. Was the injury typical, foreseeable and recoverable? Such as a broken ankle on a hike? Minor accidents happen even when all reasonable precautions are taken. The injury will heal with time and care. Was the activity that lead to the injury inherently risky / dangerous? There is definitely a question of if the school took all reasonable precautions. Even if permission was legitimately given, the school is responsible for taking reasonable precautions, especially if the activity has inherit and obvious dangers. (for example, river-rafting or rock climbing) What sort of &quot;responsibility&quot; are you interested in? If you're asking who is financially responsible for the cost of treating the injury, then regardless of how it occurred, it would likely fall to the child's health insurance (presumably provided by the parents). If the school was truly negligent in allowing a forged permission slip to a dangerous activity, then they could be found responsible for extraordinary costs associated with the injury, other costs (pain, suffering, loss of opportunity, emotional consequences, etc) and perhaps even punitive damages. If you're suggesting that someone might be criminally responsible, then a very high bar would need to be cleared. It would need to be proven that a school representative (eg. teacher or administrator) deliberately put the kid in danger for some reason, knowing what the likely outcome would be. That standard seems extremely unlikey to be met.
Leonard's law says that the school can restrict speech if it is against the religious tenets of the organization. Now I don't think school uniforms fall are part of the tenets of Catholicism, so why can private schools enforce dress codes? I see there's a misunderstanding of the Leonard's law. But I fault the California legislators (not you) for that confusion, since the statutory language is ambiguous and leads to the reasonable interpretation your inquiry reflects. The statute reads: (c) This section does not apply to a private postsecondary educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization, to the extent that the application of this section would not be consistent with the religious tenets of the organization. It is not that a religious school is allowed to restrict speech if it contravenes the tenets of that religion, but that the statute altogether is inapplicable to religious schools because it is considered an infringement of fundamental liberties to which religious institutions are entitled in the US. The [religious] school would prevail on the basis of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. See Dermody v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 530 S.W.3d 467, 474 (2017): The ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine prohibits courts from deciding cases "dependent on the question of doctrine, discipline, ecclesiastical law, rule, or custom, or church government[.]". (Please note that I strongly disagree with the application of that doctrine in the Dermody case and I consider it impermissibly outdated for the controversy litigated therein, but that is a separate issue). A religious school could convincingly argue that the judicial review of its uniforms policy infringes matters of ecclesiastical discipline/rule/custom, aspects which ultimately "involve an internal church dispute over religious authority or dogma" Roman Cath. Archbishop of LA v. Super. Ct., 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 220 (2005). Infringements of ecclesiastical abstention and akin doctrines would be outweighed only in "compelling" [cases] because "the duty to prosecute persons who commit serious crimes is part and parcel of the government's `paramount responsibility for the general safety and welfare of all its citizens'" Roman Cath. Archbishop of LA v. Super. Ct. at 225 (brackets added in this answer). A free speech controversy such as the school's uniform policy simply does not meet that threshold.
The first passage quoted appears to be from the North Carolina General Statutes section 14-269.2 (Weapons on campus or other educational property) The roughly corresponding section of South Carolina law is SECTION 23-31-215 (Issuance of permits.) subsection (M) (5). It is quite different in both wording and content. I do not find the second quoted passage in an online search, and I presume it is of the school's own writing. If you were in elementary school &quot;about 10 years ago&quot; it would seem that you are probably in high school or college now. Rules for those institutions are often quite different from elementary school and from each other. I have no way to evaluate what the school regulations on such subjects might be, but it is probably safer to leave your empty casing at home, although no rule you have quoted or that I can find online would prohibit it. An expended cartridge or casing is not a &quot;gun, rifle, pistol, or other firearm of any kind&quot; and so this provision of NC 14-269.2 would not apply, even in North Carolina. An expended cartridge is not likely to be defined as a &quot;weapon&quot; either, and so the second quotes passage should not apply, although it is possible that the school regulations define &quot;weapon&quot; differently so that an expended cartridge is included. I have no way to know what other provisions the school regulations might include that would be relevant.