Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Parents Can't Eavesdrop on Children
newsmax ^ | 12-9-04

Posted on 12/09/2004 11:15:44 PM PST by LouAvul

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: MikeinIraq
I never slammed a door again.... In our first confrontation, my 12 year old step-daughter had a nasty habit of slamming doors. After a few sharp words over the matter I went out to my truck got a screwdriver and removed the door from her room. After two weeks of having to walk down the hallway to get dressed and having her friends say "where is the door to your room?" the door slamming thing was no longer a problem. Everything else was, but without slammed doors.
21 posted on 12/09/2004 11:57:31 PM PST by bad company (I'm a new Grandpa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: thangdatrang

The law is not unconstitutional. The court has no authority to strike a law that is constitutional. The legislature can change the law.


22 posted on 12/10/2004 12:00:54 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

This uproar can be attributed to a journalist's ingnorance of the law, not a bad court decision.

From what I can tell, the Court does not make it illegal to monitor your children's conversations. The decision merely says that such evidence will not be admitted in a trial.


23 posted on 12/10/2004 12:03:58 AM PST by ConservativeLawStudent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: bad company

yeah....

Needless to say it wasnt a screwdriver that took off my door, but my dad's hand strategically placed where the hinges were....then he chucked it across the room and got in my face, drill sergeant style....


25 posted on 12/10/2004 12:09:55 AM PST by MikefromOhio (32 days until I can leave Iraq for good....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Well done B4. My daughters also know that I WILL listen to their phone conversations if and when I want. They also know that I WILL stop them on the computer and look over their IM's if and when I want. I don't do it often, but they always know of the possibility and if they try to cover up or delete anything before I get to it, they will lose that privilege.
26 posted on 12/10/2004 12:11:08 AM PST by codyjacksmom (Proud, new 1st time grandma as of 11/07/04....now it's payback time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Hey, I heard that before. Are you my dad?


27 posted on 12/10/2004 12:12:20 AM PST by texasflower (Liberty can change habits. ~ President George W. Bush 10/08/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: thangdatrang

Have you actually read the opinion?


28 posted on 12/10/2004 12:13:11 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
The Federal wire tapping statue does allow parents to evesdrop on minor child.

This case is not about the eavesdropping of a parent on a minor child.

29 posted on 12/10/2004 12:16:43 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ROTB
Here's an excerpt from the Congressional Record of 1963, which references W. Cleon Skousen's work. IMO, it is a must-read for those interested in resisting/destroying communism.

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

30 posted on 12/10/2004 12:21:45 AM PST by TChris (You keep using that word. I don't think it means what yHello, I'm a TAGLINE vir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: kingu

From what I remember from same law classes I took a while ago . . .

The evidence that the mother obtained via listening in on a conversation was obtained "illegally" and it, as well as any evidence obtained thereafter which can not be shown to have been obtainable without the "tainted" evidence, is not admissable.

It makes no difference whether the person obtaining the evidence is acting as an officer of the state. The theory being that the state could quite easily circumvent the 4th Ammendment by instigating an illegal act (B&E for example) to obtain evidence instead of obtaining a search warrent.

You example of a partner who decides to rat out does not fit in the above scenario as he was privvy to the conversation / the criminal act and can decide, of his own free will, to make public what he knows.

In the case in question, the judges have decided "correctly" and applied the law as written and intended. The DA should have known better than to use such evidence in trial (and the trial judge should have disallowed it!!). The re-trail will most likely let the perp go free - but this is a mistake of the DA and he should be held accountable.


32 posted on 12/10/2004 12:50:57 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate ((This space for let))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

here'a another one everybody will like:
In WS State at the age of 13 the police can no longer make you go home if you are a run away from your parents. In effect after your 13th birthday you can basicly go and come as you please and there's not a darn thing your parents can do about it.
The parents have tried to use the police to gain custody of their 13 year old homeless kids and have been told there is nothing the cops can do.


33 posted on 12/10/2004 1:08:58 AM PST by Allosaurs_r_us (Idaho Carnivores for Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
It's NewsMax and you were expecting accurate headlines? Tisk. :)

They're almost the American Debka File.

34 posted on 12/10/2004 1:20:48 AM PST by newzjunkey (Demand Mexico Turnover Fugitive Murderers: http://www.escapingjustice.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul
There is alot of talk on legalities about this "overheard" conversation. However it should not ne a problem for the parent or the court. If i had "overheard" this conversation it would not have been me who informed the police. It would have been my daughter (or else). This would have been direct testimony and permitted as evidence as she would have been a witness. It certainly would not have to be decided by the court.

Did the woman's daughter refuse to be a witness? If this is the case the family really has some ethical questions they need to work out with the daughter. Perhaps a conversation out behind the woodshed would be appropriate.

35 posted on 12/10/2004 1:22:42 AM PST by Allosaurs_r_us (Idaho Carnivores for Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
I've never taken law school classes, but it has always been my understanding that to be penalized (IE: case being overturned) one must be some party to the offending deed. If the police told the woman to listen to the phone call, that's being a party, and the court rightly decided in this particular case.

But from what little facts I've read of the actual case, the parent performed this action of their own free will and reported it. Your example has the state being a party to the offending deed (instigating an illegal act.)

If the state acts in good faith, it should receive the benefits of doing so.

Beyond, the concept of a person who can't sign a contract has the ability to consent to anything is an issue that is still questionable in my mind. And it is contrary to the message given to parents by the state through public outreach programs... For example, the state runs a public awareness campaign urging parents to know what their children are doing. Listening to a phone call would be following that advice.

Ahh, well, sense and the legal system are two very different beasts.
36 posted on 12/10/2004 1:23:03 AM PST by kingu (Which would you bet on? Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Haiti and Kosovo?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kingu

There is another thread with a bit more info, and, the mother was "asked" by the sheriff to "keep her eyes open" (which could be construed to her being tasked).

BUT

That is not the point. The laws regarding this were written so that ANY evidence which was illegally obtained (whether by the state directly or not) can not be used. This is to protect against the state circumventing due process and the rules of evidence by claiming that the evidence was obtained by others when in fact the "others" were acting in the name of the state.

If LE had obtained the evidence, they would have required a wire tap order which would have to be presented in court as a part of the evidence and the defendant can confront this evidence / challange it. It is upon that state to prove the merits of the order. In the case of a mother listening in, the defendant has no chance to confront the state's involvement as both can simply claim that it was done as a matter of free will and the burden of proof switches to the defendant.

Again, this is a STUPID mistake on the part of the DA - he should have known better.


37 posted on 12/10/2004 1:41:01 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate ((This space for let))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
The laws regarding this were written so that ANY evidence which was illegally obtained (whether by the state directly or not) can not be used.

You're really perked my curiosity with this... Are these laws? Or are they court precedents? Or are they code of conduct? I find it a bit hard to believe that any legislature or executive branch would so tie their hands by writing and approving such legislation, but I've seen wackier things out of government.
38 posted on 12/10/2004 2:11:18 AM PST by kingu (Which would you bet on? Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Haiti and Kosovo?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
This case is not about the eavesdropping of a parent on a minor child.

Oh really? Reading with "comprehension" reveals that it was a mother, eavesdropping on her minor child, i.e. her daughter.

39 posted on 12/10/2004 2:22:39 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

So IOW, if someone has a 14-year old daughter, and she gets a phone call from some male that the mother has suspicions about (i.e. he does NOT sound like a 14-year old classmate), and mother listens in on the conversation, and the girl and her caller discuss their last sexual encounter, that sexual pervert *cannot* be convicted on that evidence alone?


40 posted on 12/10/2004 4:23:22 AM PST by valkyrieanne (card-carrying South Park Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson