Eavesdropping against law even for parent (1 Viewer)

[Schweddy]

Source: SeattleTimes

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In a case of snooping parents vs. their children, a mother's eavesdropping on a telephone conversation between the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend violated the children's privacy, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The high court unanimously reversed a 2000 robbery conviction against Oliver Christensen, 22, of Friday Harbor, in a case based in part on the testimony of the mother and what she heard in that telephone conversation. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] "The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court." [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] The mother, Carmen Dixon, was incredulous. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] "I just believe you have the right to know what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with," said Dixon, 47, of Friday Harbor. "We were having a hard time with her as a teenager. She was sort of out of control." [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Monitoring her daughter's phone calls was "the way I could keep track of what she was up to," Dixon said. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney Randall Gaylord said the court's position weakens the ability of parents to monitor their children's actions.

[/font]

 

[Pacridge]

But this "child" was of age? The article points out that he was 22? Whats this mother doing listening in on her grown daughter's phone? Does the daughter live with her? Did she have some type of bug installed on the phone? Doesn't seem to give the "whole" story. I get the feeling that there's something missing that the author isn't telling us.

 

[Schweddy]

Yes there is something missing.

The crime and the fact that a girl was 14 at the time. The mom was listening to her 14 year old kid and this Oliver by speakerphone in the next room. Oliver admitted to a crime over the phone - mom went to the cops. Courts said it was illegal to eavesdrop on her daughter and case was dropped.

 

[Pacridge]

Yes there is something missing.

The crime and the fact that a girl was 14 at the time. The mom was listening to her 14 year old kid and this Oliver by speakerphone in the next room. Oliver admitted to a crime over the phone - mom went to the cops. Courts said it was illegal to eavesdrop on her daughter and case was dropped.

Then, IMHO, what is missing is the brainpower of whatever Judge or Judges made that decision. I don't understand judicial decisions of this nature. Is there some arguement that by allowing this evidence then any and all evidence collected by eavesdropping would have to be allowed? But this happend in the mother's own home, right? Seems to be comparing apples and jet engines.

 

[Schweddy]

Which is exactly why I chose this story.

I could have chose this one and gotten a different response.

Source: Canoe

SEATTLE -- Striking a blow for rebellious teenagers, the Washington Supreme Court ruled yesterday that state law prohibits parents from eavesdropping on a child's phone conversations. The case reached the high court because of a purse-snatching. A 17-year-old boy was convicted of the robbery, in part on testimony from his girlfriend's mother, who overheard him discussing the crime on the phone with her daughter.

The daughter had taken a cordless phone into her bedroom and closed the door. In another room, her mother pressed the speakerphone button on an extension, listened in and took notes.

The court ruled that the daughter and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone. Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants.

The boyfriend will get a new trial.

 

[Pacridge]

I don't think you'd have gotten a different response from me, but maybe? I don't see how a child living in their parents home can expect to the same privacy rights to the extent of everyone elses. When my daughter lived with us, we snooped. Not because we thought she was "up to something" but more in line with protecting her from her own mistakes. Mistakes I made as a teenager I might add. As my father told me "my house, my rules."


But this thief is not just getting off- he's getting a new trail right? Wait, still sounds d-u-m-m to me. And if he gets a new trial without this evidence will he get convicted? Dumb, dumm and dummier.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

I have a very simple solution then.

An EULA for the telephone.

"The phone lines running into this house are paid for by your parents and are therefore subject to monitoring at any time. Although I will not take extraordinary measures to monitor your conversations, it would be in your best interest to know that I can and may do so at anytime. If you do not agree to these terms, please refrain from using my phone."

 

[Pacridge]

I have a very simple solution then.

An EULA for the telephone.

"The phone lines running into this house are paid for by your parents and are therefore subject to monitoring at any time. Although I will not take extraordinary measures to monitor your conversations, it would be in your best interest to know that I can and may do so at anytime. If you do not agree to these terms, please refrain from using my phone."

Me and my stupid pills again, what's a EULA?

 

[Schweddy]

End User License Agreement.

Yes, I agree that would work.

They complain and hold the parents responsible for what the kid does, but when the parents attempt to be proactive - they shoot them down. I shouldn't need a damn contract to raise my kids.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

They complain and hold the parents responsible for what the kid does, but when the parents attempt to be proactive - they shoot them down. I shouldn't need a damn contract to raise my kids.

On a very fundamental level, you are 100% correct.

On the other hand, society is going to do everything it can to undue our efforts to raise solid citizens. Sometimes we have to be crafty little buggers and if you think about it, the EULA is nothing more than our parents saying, "As long as you live under my roof."

For some reason, I'm finding some serious ironic humor in all of this.

 

[Pacridge]

End User License Agreement.

Yes, I agree that would work.

They complain and hold the parents responsible for what the kid does, but when the parents attempt to be proactive - they shoot them down. I shouldn't need a damn contract to raise my kids.

Never found much use for a contract while trying to raise our daughter. That dog training, shocker collar came in handy though.

 

[CSA_TX]

Liberalfinger

For some reason, I'm finding some serious ironic humor in all of this

I find this quite amusing myself.

 

[jcueckert13]

it is a parents job to watch after what their child is doing. i personally feel that as long as a kid is using a parents phone or internet there is no problem with the childs activity being watched.

 

[Fantasea]

Parents of a minor who gets into trouble are often held responsible for economic damages. Yet, if parents try to take measures to protect themselves or their child from harm, it is often they who find themselves in trouble.

I prefer the 'my house, my rules' credo.

 

[out of the blue]

The court that made this decision ought to be ashamed of itself. That judge is utterly void of common sense.

 

[Jufarius87]

how can we possible expect for people possibly to grow up to be morally responible when we make the jobof parenting unconstitutional im 17 and still under my parents' roof and as much as i dont like some of their rules i realize its their "constitutional right" to be a thorn in my side,..... its their job

the founding fathers must be spinning in their graves right now......

 

[Fantasea]

But this "child" was of age? The article points out that he was 22? Whats this mother doing listening in on her grown daughter's phone? Does the daughter live with her? Did she have some type of bug installed on the phone? Doesn't seem to give the "whole" story. I get the feeling that there's something missing that the author isn't telling us.

You are correct. An excerpt from a local newspaper account, which listed the child's age as fourteen, at the time of the incident, follows .

(The mother,) Carmen Dixon, 47, was incredulous, the Times reported.

"I just believe you have the right to know what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with," she said. "We were having a hard time with her as a teenager. She was sort of out of control."

Dixon said monitoring her daughter's phone calls was "the way I could keep track of what she was up to."

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the primary issue was whether the use of an extension or speaker phone was considered eavesdropping.

Whether there was an exception in the case of parents and their children was a secondary issue, the ACLU insisted.

Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the court's opinion, "The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now."

The ACLU, in carefully researching the State of Washington State law on the subject of 'eavesdropping' made a discover. The legislature may not have considered that parents listening-in on their kids telephone conversations to be a violation of their kids rights and, therefore, neglected to make an exception. Since it "ain't" included in the law, it can't be considered by the judge.

This is exactly the same argument that the ACLU has used on judges in same-sex marriage cases. If the law does not specify that marriage is limited as being between one man and one woman, then that "ain't" the law.

If the ACLU has taught me anything, it's that nothing, absolutely nothing, no matter how ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, foolish, preposterous, bizarre, fantastic, or grotesque a situation may appear to others, is beyond their goal of dismantling the US constitution.

In the sport of 'loopholing', they beat the lawmakers every time.

 

[Gabo]

As long as the parent remains as the legal guardian of the child, they should be allowed to interfere according to what they believe is in their child's best interest.

However, the child should be free to renounce their parents' duties as guardian at any time.

 

[Fantasea]

As long as the parent remains as the legal guardian of the child, they should be allowed to interfere according to what they believe is in their child's best interest.

However, the child should be free to renounce their parents' duties as guardian at any time.

Any age restriction on a child's declaring emancipation?

 

[heyjoeo]

Sure they could have the RIGHT to monitor their kids, but I think its just bad parenting. If you think something is going on that may end up with your child dying, then you should resort to something like that. But mommie listening in to see if her 17 year old has slept with Jane down the street, let that be Jimmie's fault and Jimmie's responsibility if he gets her pregnant.

 

[Fantasea]

Sure they could have the RIGHT to monitor their kids, but I think its just bad parenting. If you think something is going on that may end up with your child dying, then you should resort to something like that. But mommie listening in to see if her 17 year old has slept with Jane down the street, let that be Jimmie's fault and Jimmie's responsibility if he gets her pregnant.

I believe that the appropriate discription for your take on parental responsibility is: convolutedly distorted.

 

[Gabo]

Any age restriction on a child's declaring emancipation?

Don't know if there is currently, but there shouldn't be.

If there is, that's similar to forcing the child to be a slave to the parent.

 

[heyjoeo]

Well I will trust my children. Not psycotically stalk them and find out every detail to make sure they don't do "wrong."

 

[Fantasea]

Well I will trust my children. Not psycotically stalk them and find out every detail to make sure they don't do "wrong."

Trust has nothing to do with it. It is simply a matter of unsopisticated youngsters finding themselves in a situation for which they are not equipped, physically, mentally, or emotionally, to make a decision in their own best interests.

You are most certainly entitled to do as you wish. However, when most parents think back to the time they were the same age as their child is now, they can remember temptations, conduct, and associates that were occasions or near occasions of events that could have or actually did result in injury, misery, or worse.

The nurturing instincts of parents who have love and concern for their children leads them to spread a mantle of protection wherever and whenever they can.

Are they to be criticized for preferring that their kids not have to learn every lesson in life the hard way? Having lived through childhood and adolescence themselves, they can be relied upon to remember vividly behavior that seemed great, at the time, but the eventual consequences of turned out to horrible and sometimes irreversable.

A wise person once noted, people, especially young ones, do not always do what is expected. However, they always do what is inspected.

The old adage, "Mother knows best.", is no less true today than it was a hundred years ago.

The difference today is that most of the commercial things to which a youngster is exposed promotes the idea that parents can't possibly know anything about being a kid. Now, how dumb is that?

 

[heyjoeo]

First off, trust is the MAIN factor in any relationship. To deny the existance of that between a parent and their child is preposterous.

Second, no matter how hard parents try, kids will still have to "figure it out the hard way." My father is dealing with the same problem. My brother has made a lot of mistakes in his life, however, my dad can't help him, no matter how much advice he gives. It kills my father that he can't. That's just how the world works.

The difference today is that most of the commercial things to which a youngster is exposed promotes the idea that parents can't possibly know anything about being a kid. Now, how dumb is that?

I disagree with you. I think the world today is no more or less corrupted as when you were a child. I beileve in the 60s it was "do what feels good, worry about the consquences later." The "immoralities" of the world will always be there. Sure you could attempt to shelter and shield the child from the world around you, but in the end, they will find out about it. If you let them know about it and the pros and cons of each "immorality" when they are approached by it they will know what to do in the situation. You say that children aren't prepared for those kind of things, but I believe its the job of the parent to prepare them from these things. Not shield them, or break their trust by spying on them and tapping their phone lines.

Trust, again, is the center for all relationships. You must have trust between the parent and the child in order for the relationship to prosper. It doesn't even have to limit itself to being a parent and child, it could even be a wife or mother, boyfriend and girlfriend, trust is vital.

For you to say trust is not involved is totally incorrect.