If you have a child who goes to school with an iPhone terminal, then maybe you will be interested in this story that shows us that not everything is allowed at school. We are talking about a story from Singapore in which a student's iPhone terminal was confiscated for 3 months by the principal, who refused to return it, despite insistence.
An iPhone 7 terminal was confiscated from the student, who admitted that he used the terminal during class, despite the fact that he knew the punishment that is applied for it. Of course, the student's parent was not satisfied with the fact that a smartphone worth several hundred euros was confiscated by the school and decided to sue it.
The student's parent sent an email to the school asking for the return of his property, but of course it ignored him, so he turned to a lawyer to sue the principals. Despite this action, the court decided that the conductor's action is legal, because apparently in Singapore it is legal to confiscate another person's property, even if you are not a court of law or she is not under criminal investigation.
In this idea, the student's iPhone 7 terminal will remain in the possession of the school until June 20, the situation itself being very strange. In Romania, no one in the authorities that impose the coercive force of the state can confiscate people's property, but in Singapore the rules in schools are somewhat different than here.
"It is undisputed that the plaintiff's son flouted the Phone Rule by using the Phone during school hours. By confiscating the Phone, the defendant had merely sought to enforce the Phone Rule, which he had the authority to do. All proper procedures were also adhered to in the lead up to the confiscation of the Phone. The defendant's evidence is also that the Phone Rule is applied consistently and uniformly across the student body and that there is no reason for the plaintiff's son to be treated differently. On this point, I note that whilst the plaintiff took issue with the harshness of the punishment in his email of 21 March 2017, the plaintiff did not raise any issue with the reasonableness of the Phone Rule in these proceedings. Hence, I accept that the defendant's refusal to return the Phone until 20 June 2017 is justifiable."
