Posted on 12/09/2004 3:05:03 PM PST by Ellesu
17-Year-Old's Confession To Girlfriend Not Admissable
Parents in Washington state who want to listen in on their kids' phone conversations will have to think twice from now on.
The state's Supreme Court has ruled that it's illegal.
The court ruled that a 17-year-old boy should get a new trial on purse-snatching charges. His girlfriend's mother testified that she heard him discuss the crime when she listened in on his conversation with her daughter.
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.
My children know better than to have that foolish expectation in my house.
Uh-oh. This is very bad. When minors have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regard to their parents/guardians, ... This is very bad indeed.
already posted
except if you are the speaker of the house and a republican.
Calling all lawyers: Isn't there a difference between a reasonable expectation and certitude? And is a reasonable expectation that I won't be seen, or heard, or videoed, while committing a crime enough to have all the evidence and witnesses testimony thrown out?
Is there a story behind this Judge we should know about?
They do not (from this article) appear to have said it is illegal. They said the evidence is inadmissable.
And, of course, if you can hear Mom breathing on the extension, your expectation of privacy evaporates.
I think I am going to puke.
The only person who has a expectation of any type of privacy is the owner of the phone or the person who pays the bill for the phone.
I put the judicial dicta of "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the same category of "compelling state interest" or "public safety" or "public security" as a communist/socialist ruse to deny, disparage, and diminish our property rights.
I'm sorry. I did a search and didn't see it. Can someone tell me how to delete it?
I never listened to my kids' calls,really,but if I knew it was illegal and the courts said I shouldn't do it I probably would have listened.
The law of unintended consequences.
I have a simple solution to that: no phone.
Who the hell pays the phone bill? Whose phone is it?
Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants.
Reasonable expectation of privacy is fine, but this interpretation throws the principle of private property out of the window.
If the parents own the phone, they can listen to whoever, whenever, however on that phone.
Making law from the bench. Their chutzpah knows no bounds.
I couldn't have put it any better. You're spot on.
and what about searching their room, or finding something by accident while cleaning it? Reading their diary? I have little ones, but if I ever suspected when they become teens any drug use, etc. I'm going to snoop. And listen in on their conversations, whatever it takes.
I think the case was that some perv was filming/taking pictures underneath an escalator, looking up women's skirts.
So, my kid has total freedom on the phone, but I have to worry about perverts with cameras peeking up my skirt? The world is insane.
Parents hear noise from daughters room, come to investigate and find daughter making out with boyfriend who snuck in her window. Parents throw out teen boy / call police. Police come and arrest parents after they learn that daughter and boyfriends privacy was violated because the parents barged in where daughter and boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy...
"They do not (from this article) appear to have said it is illegal. They said the evidence is inadmissable. "
Worth repeating, as some still don't seem to get the distinction. Conversations between a husband and wife are also inadmissible but that doesn't make them illegal.
I repeat: This title of this article is bogus, parents are not "barred from listening to kids' call." Parents are barred from implicating their own children in a crime due to knowledge they gained while listening to the call.
Posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298107/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1297955/posts
The judge had no choice. The state law is clear. Consent of both parties is required.
That said, the law is completley asinine.
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.