School loses iPod after it was confiscated under questionable circumstances

[keyframe]

My son had a $300 iPod confiscated by a teacher during class at an Indiana public school. The iPod was allowed during this class to listen to music. He had music videos playing as his music source. The teacher incorrectly assumed that he was watching videos instead, took the iPod. We received a call from the dean and was told that it would not be returned to him and that we had to pick it up. This is because my son had a previous incident with using a cell phone when he shouldn't.

Due to our work hours, a couple months passed before I could make it in. The iPod was missing. I gave them time to locate it. I nicely inquired again, with no luck. I asked the dean if she asked everyone who had access. She said it was in a locked drawer, and that drawer is only accessed to issue items back to parents or students. I suggested the possibility that it was mistakenly given to another person, maybe claiming it was theirs. I asked if there was a log to track who picked up what. I now receive no response.

My next step is to go the schools system administration, unless suggested otherwise. But after that, can I sue? Also what should I ask for in compensation...replacement value of a new model or an identical refurbished model, etc.? Owning this expensive iPod is unique for us, and we cannot replace it.

I know these types of cases have had no success, but for me having the iPod in school was not forbidden, and the school did not take reasonable care of valuable items through a simple log.

 

[Just Blue]

My son had a $300 iPod confiscated by a teacher during class at an Indiana public school. The iPod was allowed during this class to listen to music. He had music videos playing as his music source. The teacher incorrectly assumed that he was watching videos instead, took the iPod. We received a call from the dean and was told that it would not be returned to him and that we had to pick it up. This is because my son had a previous incident with using a cell phone when he shouldn't.

Due to our work hours, a couple months passed before I could make it in. The iPod was missing. I gave them time to locate it. I nicely inquired again, with no luck. I asked the dean if she asked everyone who had access. She said it was in a locked drawer, and that drawer is only accessed to issue items back to parents or students. I suggested the possibility that it was mistakenly given to another person, maybe claiming it was theirs. I asked if there was a log to track who picked up what. I now receive no response.

My next step is to go the schools system administration, unless suggested otherwise. But after that, can I sue? Also what should I ask for in compensation...replacement value of a new model or an identical refurbished model, etc.? Owning this expensive iPod is unique for us, and we cannot replace it.

I know these types of cases have had no success, but for me having the iPod in school was not forbidden, and the school did not take reasonable care of valuable items through a simple log.

Two month to get there? I suggest you sue the school. It will likely take you years to deal with it based in your work hours...But there you go.

 

[Ohiogal]

Two month to get there? I suggest you sue the school. It will likely take you years to deal with it based in your work hours...But there you go.

Qualified immunity for schools. Won't get OP anywhere. And truthfully the son shouldn't have been playing videos. He bears responsibility for his actions.

 

[stealth2]

I'd suggest your son get a job after school so he can buy a new one.

And... knowing teens? I'd bet he WAS watching videos, but is claiming the teacher incorrectly "assumed". Or petrhaps he told you the ipod was allowed in class, when that may not have been the case. As a parent? I would not have allowed a $300 piece of electronics (especially one I could not afford to replace) to go to school - particularly given the previous cell phone issue.

I'd put it down as an expensive lesson learned. For all of you.

 

[Just Blue]

Qualified immunity for schools. Won't get OP anywhere. And truthfully the son shouldn't have been playing videos. He bears responsibility for his actions.

I know...I was being sarcastic.

 

[quincy]

My son had a $300 iPod confiscated by a teacher during class at an Indiana public school. ... My next step is to go the schools system administration, unless suggested otherwise. But after that, can I sue? Also what should I ask for in compensation...replacement value of a new model or an identical refurbished model, etc.? Owning this expensive iPod is unique for us, and we cannot replace it.

I know these types of cases have had no success, but for me having the iPod in school was not forbidden, and the school did not take reasonable care of valuable items through a simple log.

I read through several Indiana public school handbooks. You received one at the start of your son's school year.

Every handbook I read had clear policies on cell phones and electronic devices, and the rights of the school to confiscate them from students using them improperly during class. There is a clause in each handbook that says the school "is not responsible for lost, stolen or damage to cell phones or other electronic devices."

All schools (or at least all that I researched) required that you sign and return a form saying that you read the handbook and agreed to the terms set out in it.

I agree with the others that it is an expensive lesson learned.

 

[keyframe]

Thank you quincy for your reasonable attempt at an answer. I don't know why I'm surprised to see presumptuous commentary and moot points on the internet, but I thought a legal advice forum would be different. Priggish remarks are not helpful, and should be left to other facilities.

From the Student Handbook:

"Listening devices with headphones may, with teacher permission, be used in that
teacher's class. School personnel may take electronic devices from students who violate these
guidelines and deliver them to Student Services."

It was was taken to Student Services. But there is no further commentary here at all on indemnification.

"District assumes no responsibility for personal devices if they are lost, loaned, damaged or stolen and only limited time or resources will be spent trying to locate stolen or lost items."

As mentioned, this is common. However the iPod was not lost, loaned, damaged, or stolen. It was confiscated, and there is no hold harmless clause to that matter anywhere in the handbook.

Even if it was, just because something is written in a handbook and signed does not make it a legal contract. Circumstances are still subject to the law, which of course is complicated and specifically what I am questioning. An extreme example is that I could make up a contract stating I'm not responsible for murdering John Doe and he signs it; it does not give me the freedom to do so.

The school recognizes the value and need to secure such items, but then takes a casual attitude in the common sense steps to have any policy whatsoever in governing that process.

 

[quincy]

Thank you quincy for your reasonable attempt at an answer. I don't know why I'm surprised to see presumptuous commentary and moot points on the internet, but I thought a legal advice forum would be different. Priggish remarks are not helpful, and should be left to other facilities.

From the Student Handbook:

"Listening devices with headphones may, with teacher permission, be used in that
teacher's class. School personnel may take electronic devices from students who violate these
guidelines and deliver them to Student Services."

It was was taken to Student Services. But there is no further commentary here at all on indemnification.

"District assumes no responsibility for personal devices if they are lost, loaned, damaged or stolen and only limited time or resources will be spent trying to locate stolen or lost items."

As mentioned, this is common. However the iPod was not lost, loaned, damaged, or stolen. It was confiscated, and there is no hold harmless clause to that matter anywhere in the handbook.

Even if it was, just because something is written in a handbook and signed does not make it a legal contract. Circumstances are still subject to the law, which of course is complicated and specifically what I am questioning. An extreme example is that I could make up a contract stating I'm not responsible for murdering John Doe and he signs it; it does not give me the freedom to do so.

The school recognizes the value and need to secure such items, but then takes a casual attitude in the common sense steps to have any policy whatsoever in governing that process.

I understand the argument you are making, keyframe.

That said, the iPad was confiscated from your son, and the school can confiscate cell phones and other electronic devices from students who are using them improperly in the classroom. It says that in your school handbook. Once confiscated, the iPad was apparently stolen or lost. The school assumes no responsibility for items that are stolen or lost. It says that in your school handbook.

You are free to explore your options with an attorney in your area, but I do not see you having an argument that will get you a replacement iPad.

 

[tranquility]

I don't think the immunity is as clear as the others. The district does not get to seize items and then disappear them even though they are the government and there is a disclaimer of liability. (Which seems more pointed to devices brought to the school in general and not to things in the school's possession.)

Qualified immunity gets to the decisions of government officials. The decision to seize the item is protected by governmental immunity. The way it is stored is not. (It is more ministerial.) As the Supreme Court held:

government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

The police cannot seize a computer for evidence, even with a warrant, and just keep it on the back porch in the rain after they call the owner to pick it up. It is objectively unreasonable.

While we are not going to develop the facts enough in this situation to determine the liability of the school (Actually, the person who is responsible. A "school" can't be sued.) we won't know the result. If it was in a locked room and the room was broken into and the Ipod was stolen, I would think there might be no responsibility. If they kept it in box under the counter where students, faculty and parents walk by, not so much. The real issue here is the level of care required. I would think a negligence standard appropriate although one might argue a bailment standard. Depending on what bailment standard is applied, it might be less or more than negligence as a duty. Less if it is determined the student violated the rules and so knew the item would be seized and we could call it a benefit to the bailor. More if it is determined the seizure is solely for the benefit of the school and we can call it a benefit to the bailee. Perhaps a benefit to both.

 

[quincy]

I don't think the immunity is as clear as the others. The district does not get to seize items and then disappear them even though they are the government and there is a disclaimer of liability. (Which seems more pointed to devices brought to the school in general and not to things in the school's possession.) ...

First, schools all over the country have had to address the issue of confiscating students' goods for a long long time and they have learned how to avoid liability.

There is one additional phrase found in the Indiana handbooks reviewed: "Items left longer than thirty (30) days will be disposed of in an appropriate manner" (for one example out of many, a link to the Northwestern High School Student Handbook, see page 26 http://nhs.nws.k12.in.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=91&Itemid=309).

Again, it would not hurt keyframe to discuss what happened with an attorney in keyframe's area of Indiana to get a better idea of the school's responsibility in replacing a confiscated iPad that is missing but, again, it seems unlikely that the school will replace a confiscated iPad left in their possession for two months when there is a parent-signed agreement that the school is not responsible for lost, stolen or damaged goods.

 

[tranquility]

First, schools all over the country have had to address the issue of confiscating students' goods for a long long time and they have learned how to avoid liability.

Perhaps by behaving reasonably? Police have been seizing property for a long long time as well and the way they avoid liability is by behaving reasonably under the circumstances.

There is one additional phrase found in the Indiana handbooks reviewed: "Items left longer than thirty (30) days will be disposed of in an appropriate manner" (for one example out of many, a link to the Northwestern High School Student Handbook, see page 26 http://nhs.nws.k12.in.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=91&Itemid=309).

A limitation in a student handbook may or may not be successful. It would depend on if the limitation is...reasonable. Kids have to go to school by law. The school cannot place illegal and unreasonable requirements in a handbook and demand the students comply. That does not mean I feel this restriction is unreasonable, it is just that simply because it is in the handbook does not make it the law. Besides, did the school dispose of the item in an appropriate manner?

Again, it would not hurt keyframe to discuss what happened with an attorney in keyframe's area of Indiana to get a better idea of the school's responsibility in replacing a confiscated iPad that is missing but, again, it seems unlikely that the school will replace a confiscated iPad left in their possession for two months when there is a parent-signed agreement that the school is not responsible for lost, stolen or damaged goods.

That parent-signed agreement could be defeated by any of a number of arguments. One being the fact it is not a contract. What did the school give up? However a contractual argument is different from an immunity one.

(As to the attorney, I might suggest one will not give too much effort over a used Ipod that cost $300.)

Thinking edit:
I suppose it is possible there is a contract with the parents if we claim the school has the right to prevent students from having electronics and they give up that right if the student wants to have electronics on campus. However, the contractual argument would be difficult to make if it is the student who owns the electronic.

 

[Isis1]

your child owes you $300 dollars.

he was playing videos on his phone. he failed. shame on him for not following directions.

you took a COUPLE OF MONTHS to pick up a $300 dollar item? seriously? i would have been there that DAY. and boy would have my child been in some serious trouble. guess who should have been paying me for any lost work hours? yup. you better believe it.

it was a used item. you can request to speak to the school administrator. the district supervisor. you may get the devalued cost. probably not even a refurbished value. i'd be dragging your kid around and making him speak to everyone so HE can understand the hassle he caused.

 

[keyframe]

your child owes you $300 dollars.

Not the point...a separate issue...this is a legal forum and not a parenting one

he was playing videos on his phone. he failed. shame on him for not following directions.

Also not the point, as what is in question is what is the school's responsibility for confiscated items. Anyway, he had music videos playing. It was my wife's iPod which does not have his music on it. So he had music videos playing as his source of music. He was also not the only one doing that, but still irrelevant to the question so I'm sorry I mentioned it.

you took a COUPLE OF MONTHS to pick up a $300 dollar item? seriously? i would have been there that DAY. and boy would have my child been in some serious trouble. guess who should have been paying me for any lost work hours? yup. you better believe it.

Quick to judge? My wife was away in the military, and I was working 3 jobs to help my family with medical bills in collections. Not everyone has your flexibility in schedule and the time to offer presumptuous, unsolicited, and irrelevant advice in the wrong environment. My son was disciplined properly. And due to his age, a handicap, and where we live, he has no option for a job right now. I only mentioned it in case from a legal standpoint it mattered, which I know now does not.

 

[keyframe]

Thank you to those who engage in this topic from a legal standpoint as it is a very interesting one and good points have been made.

Whether or not the handbook can be considered a contract, what is clear in this case is that this handbook does not have any wording at all anywhere about confiscated items such as in the Northwestern handbook. Even then the question remains if that even matters. A school can put whatever they want in a handbook, but that does not make it legal. I know of a case where a repair shop had a policy of non-responsibility if item is not picked up within 90 days. After they disposed of an item and was sued, a judge found in favor of the customer. It does not matter what the business has for a policy or what their signs say. What matters is bailment law, and how it applies to the case.

Even if the handbook is considered a valid contract, the only thing they have in there indemnifying themselves of responsibility is of lost items, not confiscated, and there is a clear difference.

This comes down to I think our bailment law, and the school taking reasonable care which they did not. I think I have unquestionable ground to stand on now. I found that they acknowledge the value of such items by locking them up. But there is no control over who has access to that lockup. There is no documentation as to what goes in there and what comes out. A student can simply say, "I lost an iPod," and an office worker can ask, "Is this it?" and hand it over. Also apparently confiscated items are locked in the same drawer as lost ones.

There were several examples of ridiculous backtracking in emails such as:
"We are not responsible for lost items" ..."It wasn't lost, a teacher took it and you told me you had it."
"Well then I'm sure he picked it up already" ..."No, you told me he would not be allowed to, and by the way do you not have a simple log to track that?"

I finally got a voicemail offering to give me another iPod that someone else has not claimed! There is clear acknowledgement they screwed up, and hope that I would be happy by stealing from someone else. Taking something that is not mine, from someone who apparently does not have the right to give it is not only wrong, but surely illegal?

 

[quincy]

Thank you to those who engage in this topic from a legal standpoint as it is a very interesting one and good points have been made.

Whether or not the handbook can be considered a contract, what is clear in this case is that this handbook does not have any wording at all anywhere about confiscated items such as in the Northwestern handbook. Even then the question remains if that even matters. A school can put whatever they want in a handbook, but that does not make it legal. I know of a case where a repair shop had a policy of non-responsibility if item is not picked up within 90 days. After they disposed of an item and was sued, a judge found in favor of the customer. It does not matter what the business has for a policy or what their signs say. What matters is bailment law, and how it applies to the case.

Even if the handbook is considered a valid contract, the only thing they have in there indemnifying themselves of responsibility is of lost items, not confiscated, and there is a clear difference.

This comes down to I think our bailment law, and the school taking reasonable care which they did not. I think I have unquestionable ground to stand on now. I found that they acknowledge the value of such items by locking them up. But there is no control over who has access to that lockup. There is no documentation as to what goes in there and what comes out. A student can simply say, "I lost an iPod," and an office worker can ask, "Is this it?" and hand it over. Also apparently confiscated items are locked in the same drawer as lost ones.

There were several examples of ridiculous backtracking in emails such as:
"We are not responsible for lost items" ..."It wasn't lost, a teacher took it and you told me you had it."
"Well then I'm sure he picked it up already" ..."No, you told me he would not be allowed to, and by the way do you not have a simple log to track that?"

I finally got a voicemail offering to give me another iPod that someone else has not claimed! There is clear acknowledgement they screwed up, and hope that I would be happy by stealing from someone else. Taking something that is not mine, from someone who apparently does not have the right to give it is not only wrong, but surely illegal?

Interesting. If you feel the law is on your side, then, you are certainly free to challenge the school's policy. tranquility gave you some direction on bailment. Good luck.