Posted on 12/09/2004 11:41:15 AM PST by MissouriConservative
SEATTLE -- The state Supreme Court has ruled that the Privacy Act prohibits a parent from eavesdropping on a child's phone conversations.
The case came to the Supreme Court because of a purse-snatching in Friday Harbor. A 17-year-old boy was convicted of second-degree robbery, based in part on testimony from his girlfriend's mom, who overhead 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, the mom pressed the "speakerphone" button on the base of the phone, listened to the conversation 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 consent from all participants.
"The Washington privacy statute puts a high value on the privacy of communications," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion.
The daughter's boyfriend will get a new trial.
The case is State of Washington v. Oliver C. Christensen, No. 74839-0.
What garbage.
Good grief! Are these minors--and who owns that phone, after all?
If the "village" can't persuade you that it's best suited to raise your child, it will incrementally usurp your authority to do so anyway.
Oh that would have reeeeeely gone over with my Mother...
after she practiced bouncing my Irish head off the walls for about an hour, then she'd want to know if I wanted to use the phone? ROFLMAO
uhhh, no thanks Ma... LOL
In my house, on my phone, my kids don't have any expectation of privacy at least until they're 18. This is the most riduculous ruling I have ever heard. I suppose, though, that the court might have been just accurately intpreting a stupid law.
And considering that an illegal act was being discussed.....this "private" conversation could have implicated the mother as well as her daughter.
This ruling is going way too far....the girl is a minor, the phone is owned and paid for by the mother....I just don't get this ruling at all.
That phone line is MINE. Not my childs. Anything they say or do with said phone line is not only my property, but my responsibility.
Y'all STILL think we can work within to save this system?
She can't listen to her own phone in her own house?
But the daughter was under 18 and lived at home. The court would also hold the mother responsible for many things involving the child. I wouldn't think a Privacy Act would apply to your own child in your own home. Of course I haven't read the law, but I doubt that was its intent.
No way!!!!!
I guess not. I guess minor children now have certain "rights." I guess we can add this one to the list that includes getting an abortion without parental consent.
Is it against the law to force your 10 year old to go to church?
Very interesting reading. Thank you.
All I could think was "This has got to be a joke..." How sad that it isn't.
Sadly, it's coming sooner than any of us may realize.
Unfortunately it is a "joke" of a ruling....but unfortunately these nuts are serious.....seriously dumb that is.
Holy Smokes is this what we are paying the SC for? To give unfathomable power to a 17 year old PUNK!
This is crap and it will get overtur.. well maybe not but this is crap. The punk did the crime now he is trying to get out on technicalities. This is crap!
He as a an up and coming CRIMINAL should know you cant trust your women with these details of petty theft, robbery, armed robbery, accidental shooting robbery, drug deal gone bad, straight up murder info.. You just cant trust them cackling chicks.
as for talking on the phone with this info..you are stupid PUNK! and you get what you deserve PUNK.
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.