[/font][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.
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.vauge said: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.
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.
Me and my stupid pills again, what's a EULA?LiberalFINGER said: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."
On a very fundamental level, you are 100% correct.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.vauge said: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.
I find this quite amusing myself.For some reason, I'm finding some serious ironic humor in all of this
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 .Pacridge said: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.
Any age restriction on a child's declaring emancipation?Gabo said: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.
I believe that the appropriate discription for your take on parental responsibility is: convolutedly distorted.heyjoeo said: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.
Don't know if there is currently, but there shouldn't be.Fantasea said:Any age restriction on a child's declaring emancipation?
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.heyjoeo said:Well I will trust my children. Not psycotically stalk them and find out every detail to make sure they don't do "wrong."
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.Fant said: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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?