"Phillip Michael" wrote in message ...
Is an entity such as a public school allowed to adopt a policy that allow
them to confiscate any device on their property that interferes with their
wireless devices?

Dunno. For example?

For example:
Both devices are Part 15.
The school owns a wireless access point.
A student owns a cordless phone.

If a cordless phone interferes with a wireless access point and
the school's policy says "they have the right to confiscate any device that
interferes with their wireless network"
Does the school really have the right to confiscate the cordless phone?

Not only can't they confiscate it, but they cannot even monitor it.

Since the Gingrich interception, the monitoring of cellular and
cordless phones has been illegal. But you knew that.

See any scanner catalog. Notice the really expensive scanners that
anyone overseas can purchase really cheap, but not you?

Those expensive scanners are for law enforcement agencies only. They
receive cellular frequencies. See the fine print.

To be able to monitor cellular or cordless phones requires a law
enforcement agency and a judge. The judge services the search
warrant/wire tap. Except for homeland security. I think just about
anything goes there.

Schools are not law enforcement agencies, or are they?

Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to
confiscate it?

Barrister Phil should say no. But lately he's been saying all sorts
of things.

Here is a phrase from Part 15.5.b
interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an
authorized radio station

Does this only apply to a device or to an individual using a device?

Are Part 15 devices authorized?

Part 15 says they are. Doesn't say "who" is authorized to use them.
I assume they are lawfully used by citizens, hams, school children,
and even Taliban.

I'm not a communications attorney, nor do I pretend to be one on
R.R.A.P., but Phil might be able to help you - if he's not mistaken.