Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law (can't listen in on your kids)

[Tab]

SEATTLE - Striking a blow for rebellious teenagers, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday 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 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, 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 Washington privacy statute puts a high value on the privacy of communications," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20041209/ap_on_re_us/parental_snooping

[momzno1]

1. I totally disagree with that

as a parent, if you think your kid is in trouble, you need to get to the bottom of it. Of course if she had known and done nothing, this mother might have been charged as an accomplice too! Even sometimes as a parent who doesn't know what stuff their kid is doing, they have been held responsible.

[trotsky]

2. OK, that's ridiculous.

No one should have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" on any phone, let alone on a cordless one in a house with other people and additional phones.

[Scairp]

32. When the kid pays the f-ing bill...

THEN they will have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is bullshit.

[Melodybe]

3. I actually disagree with this, if the government can listen to our phone

conversations but we can not, I have problems.

The freeps are pissed about this too.

I am a mother and although I would not spy on my children some children are secretive and there is no other way.

Watch the movie thirteen, you'll se what I mean.

The government being able to spy on you fine, let a mother trying to find out what her children are up to do and it is wrong.

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. I agree with you...

Its one thing for an indivudal (or the government) to go wiretap someone's phone.

Its entirely a different thing to pick up a phone in your own home and listen to the conversation.

[Goldmund]

4. Good. I agree with that.

[Melodybe]

5. Do you have children?

As I said you should watch the movie Thirteen, children are not allows open.

This yet another example of parents taking away parental rights, why are you cool with this?

[Goldmund]

7. I don't need to watch a movie to know that children aren't always open.

No, I don't have children. But I was one, and I have derived some conclusions from the rocky relationship I had with my parents when I was a teenager -- and I interact with them often. I also interact with parents.

And what I see as the alpha and omega of a succesful parent-child relationship is mutual human respect. A child isn't a project, it's not an object, it's not a body filling a role that exists in the parents' head, and the parent has no more jurisdiction or ownership over her child's privacy than any two mutually respecting human beings have over each other.

Also, keep in mind these were 17 year olds. Not 5 year olds. Not 8 year olds. There's a point where the parent needs to recognize that her child has become a spiritually independent person. That point almost always lags behind the child's actual development. I remember feelings of pain and hurt when my parents went through my drawers, for example, or eavesdropped on my conversations with my friends. Though I had nothing to hide, that drove me to be secretive as a counter-reaction to this, for the lack of a better word, disrespect.

[Sterling]

54. My parents conned me into taking a pee test for"insurance purposes"

When I was 16. I had smoked a little pot on the weekends at parties but that was pretty much all I was up to. The insurance thing turned out to be a drug test which I was punished severely for failing. The irony is that it destroyed the trust I had in my parents and the punishment they dished out actually took me out of activities that kept me away from the wrong crowd. I went on to move a way from home join a rock band and do everything the did not want me to later in life, and have not regretted a thing.

Parents need to treat their kids with respect if they ever want it in return. Recently my step mom asked for my social security # for "insurance purposes". Sorry honey not this time around whatever it is you are up to I am not interested.

[elsiesummers]

62. What could she want with your SSN?

Odd - have you figured out any ideas of why/ what she could want with your SSN?

One of my frinds, a few years back, found that her Sister in Law's sister (who she was vaguely friendly with) kept asking her personal questions. She began to find the questions odd and suspected something.

Eventually she found that the sister was in a nasty divorce against a rich and locally respected lawyer husband and was trying to run away/ dissappear from her husband with her child and assume my friend's identity.

These are not the kind of people you would think anything like this could happen with.

Some things are so surprising.

[Thor_MN]

77. Not saying that this is the same as your case, but

I needed to get my siblings SSNs to list them as beneficiaries (sp?) on a life (death) insurance form. Not having any dependants, I would never pay for death insurance, but it was something that my former employer provided before I was replaced by a foreign person on a work Visa. (Thanks George!!!)

The issue with your step monster may be totally different, but there ARE a few reasons that she could request your SSN for completely innocent reasons. And since many people get all messed up while thinking about their deaths, she might have not wanted to talk about why she needed your SSN. Your mileage may vary, but I'm just saying...

[genieroze]

21. Nanny Bushco knows what's good for you.

I wonder if they will charge Santa Clause next. I mean how does he know if you have been naughty or nice? lol

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

44. Parental Rights are being taken away...

Want to eavesdrop on your kid? Go for it.
Want to ground your kid based on information you gained from eavesdropping. Fine and Dandy.

Want to turn the information over to the County Prosecutor or the Department of Homeland Security so they can use the wheels of government to grind somebody into mush?

...we got a problem here.

Don't confuse the rights of the government with your rights as a parent.

[KurtNYC]

6. Misleading headline

I think this court decision is really about whether or not the mother's testimony was admissable in the purse snatching. It seems highly unlikely that a court case about purse snatching could end up producing a ruling that has sweeping implications about privacy.

Someone I know owns a scanner which picks up cordless phone calls from about a 1/4 mile radius. I thought it was common knowledge that cordless phones (900mhz) are broadcasting your conversation. How does anyone broadcasting expect privacy? Of course picking up the extension phone makes it even easier.

[elehhhhna]

8. So if a Mom in Columbine had listened in...

[Goldmund]

13. Sounding like Ashcroft...

After all, had he been able to eavesdrop on the terraists, they would have been stopped.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

46. The Result?

She would have known that her child was seriously disturbed. She might have taken away his guns. She could have informed the police that a bloodbath was imminent.

The only drawback would be that her son couldn't be charged by the police. Which he wasn't anyway because he and his accomplice and a dozen or so other people were dead.

[Sterling]

56. I think the guns and explosives in the garage would have tipped them off.

The fact was those were bad parents period. There are ways of knowing what your kid is up to without showing them you are a no good liar and willing to treat them like a criminal.

Pay attention and talk to your kids like people for a change. Be their friend as well as parents. When they grow up you will lose them emotionally unless you can still have their respect and friendship.
I can tell you I know far more people that hate their parents for the way they were treated growing up than I do people who benefited from parents who treated them like criminals.

[Bono71]

9. Agree , without reading the case, it sounds like this is the old

"fruit of a posion tree" argument...the state obtained evidence from an illegal act, therefore evidence was inadmissable...reversible error.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genieroze]

22. Must be an old scanner, the new ones can't do that. eom

[Tab]

28. No, because...

it now sets a precedent that a parent listening in at home on their kids is an invasion of privacy.

Yes, cordless phones (at least the older ones) could be picked up, but because there was an expectation of privacy, if your neighbor recorded a conversation, that would be an invasion of privacy.

However in this case, this is a child (a minor) in their parent's home.

As a parent myself, I would respect my child's privacy, but if there was a suspicion of something particularly bad going on, I'd want the ability to check it out. They are my child, I responsible for their welfare.

- Tab

[sendero]

31. Trust me..

... as a radio hobbyist I'm well familiar with the law in this area. And I'm pretty sure Federal law trumps on this issue.

And there is NO "reasonable expectation of privacy" when using a cordless phone, they are just transmitters and any scanner can pick them up.

Now it is true that some of the late model spread spectrum phones would be somewhat more difficult to intercept and the law might be different for them.

[ArthurDent]

34. Nope.

It's not about federal law -- it's about a Washington statute. The US Constitution only sets a floor as to what is an acceptable search. States are welcome to raise that floor to a higher point. That, apparently, is what WA did.

[sendero]

38. Ok, well....

.. I suppose that is their right as a state, but on matters such as this Federal law is generally considered a pretty good guideline.

[eternalburn]

10. I have to disagree as well...

I just keep thinking of Columbine. Wouldn't it have been wonderful if one of the parents of the boys could have had foreknowledge and stopped that tragedy.

If someone is under my roof I think I have the right to the knowledge of anything that I could be held responsible for later either by the authorities or by my own conscience. If I suspect there is going to be a party, minors drinking, drug deals, or criminal activity of any sort I sure as hell am going to listen to what goes on in this house.

[TheWraith]

15. Try actually being a parent instead of a spy.

Perhaps if more parents actually talked to their children, and interacted with them in a civilized and respectful manner, they wouldn't need to resort to tactics like spying and tracking devices to know what their kids are doing. It's exactly this kind of authoritarian 'do as I say, not as I do' crap that alienates kids and makes them unwilling to open up. Do you think the Columbine shooters would have done what they did if they felt their parents genuinely cared about them as more than just a task to be dealt with? Goldmund is right--kids are not a project, property, or a pet, and if you think that all you need to do to be a good parent is to invade their privacy and act as an 'authority figure' then you're very mistaken.

[Red State Rebel]

17. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Have you had teenagers?

I have raised 4.....

[Djinn]

29. my folks raised 4

and listening to our conversations wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference as to how we turned out.

The one that did go off the rails did so regardless of what ma and pa kettle did - they knew what was going on but short of locking her away there wasn't a lot they could do - she turned out fine in the end, having parents that trusted her and respected her might of had a lot to do with that.

If you here your kid on the phone talking about screwing or taking drugs (for example) what exactly are you giong to do, draconian reaction will alienate them further and talking to them will only work if you have the sort of relationship in which talking honestly is an established precedent anyway...in which case the snooping bit is unneccesary.

In short - why bother?

[eternalburn]

20. I am trying to be the best parent I can.....

...and I have lots of drawbacks :)

By the way, how many children do you have?

[manic expression]

24. I definitely agree with what you said

A lot of people are saying: "Well, it's not good for the government to listen to my conversations, but it's OK for parents to listen to their kids' conversations". It's funny how many adults here probably disagree with the government's ability to listen in on their conversations, but are completely fine with adults doing the exact same thing to a minor. Both of these things are wrong in every way.
No parent has the right to invade a kid's privacy in this manner. It needs to be done in an honest manner and not with clandestine actions. Parents need to realize that they do not hold total sway over another individual's belongings and private doings.

[hinachan]

35. Bad parenting creates bad kids

If people wouldn't alienate themselves from their teens, there would be no need to spy on them, because they'd be well-adjusted enough not to be criminals in the first place. Nothing makes a teen hate his/her parents like eavesdropping on a phone conversation, reading a diary, or whatever. If a parent is dishonorable enough to resort to such measures, you know right away where the kid got the idea to be dishonorable--years ago, from mommy and daddy's lack of an example.

And please, spare us the "I pay the bills" crap. Someday, when you have to live in your kids' homes because you're too old and decrepit to live on your own, it would be just as loathsome if your kids read YOUR private papers or eavesdropped on YOUR conversations. Paying the bills does NOT buy you the right to treat others as subhuman. If you truly believe that wealth gives you the right to lord it over others, especially those in a lower position than yourself, then you're in agreement with the likes of George W. Bush: money = power.

Treat kids as people, and they'll act like people. Treat them as criminals, and they'll act like criminals. And I thank God every day that my mother was wise enough to treat me like a person and not a possession that she "owned". She was strict, much stricter than most parents, but she instilled fairness first and foremost. Trampling over the rights of someone younger and smaller was forbidden, as well it should be.

[bunny planet]

41. Obviously, you are not a parent of teenagers. Either that or you are the

patron saint of teenagers and they speak openly to you when they ignore all other lesser adults.

[countryjake]

52. Well said, TheWraith!

I am a parent & I made teaching respect for others a number one priority, starting from birth. No patron saints here, just common sense, golden-rule-type logic. At what age, exactly, do basic human rights kick in?

[bunny planet]

71. I never said I did not teach respect for others to my three children, two

of whom are teenagers. I merely commented on Wraith's seemingly self-righteous take on advice for raising teenagers. It seemed as if perhaps, he or she (didn't check profile) had that tone people often have when they've actually had no first hand experience with raising children.

Often, you just have to teach them values, and repeat them often, act out of those values to model it for them, and just hope that it's sinking in somewhere. Teenagers are notoriously close-mouthed for a few years, some more than others. This is a normal stage for them to go through, it's called separation. They don't always tell us everything and we have to be there to listen when there are such rare candid moments.

I too, would never want to consider listening in on my children's phone conversations. If I had noticed other obvious worrying changes in their behavior, and got no results from asking directly, and suspected they were in some kind of trouble or danger, I cannot honestly say that I wouldn't think about more indirect ways of finding out what is going on. It's very easy to make sweeping (and judgemental) statements about other people's parenting, in some cases it's warranted, but in many ways it just comes across as smug.

I don't think any parent can predict ahead of time just what they would do if they thought their child was in danger. Every situation is different, every child is different. I have neighbors with three children too. Two of them are honor students who never even went out on Saturday nights, stayed at the hand holding stage with any relationships they might have had, one is now at an Ivy League school majoring in Latin. Their third child is wild and crazy, sneaks out of the house at every opportunity, has hit all four bases at thirteen, and speaks like a truckdriver to her bewildered parents. Same household, same values, same 'golden rules'!!!!! Now they are resorting to reading her online journal (after ferreting out the password) and listening in on her phone conversations occasionally. They were once very certain about their parental superiority. Now they are just plain worried. Should they be reported to the thought police? I don't think so.

I haven't had any problems with mine yet, but I feel for those that do, because I know you can do everything pretty much right, and still have things turn out very difficult in child rearing, especially with teens.

[Sterling]

58. You are right

When you have to spy on your kid I think you have already failed as a parent IMHO.

[FlaGranny]

73. Agree,

I raised my children well, taught them values, and never looked through their things or listened in on their phone conversations. I respected them, and they respected me. Never had ONE of them mouth off at me or give me a hard time when they were teenagers. They asked my opinions and I asked their opinions and we discussed things. They always knew how I felt. They didn't get into any trouble. I'm sure they had their secrets when they got older and they were entitled to have them. You do your very best and then you have to trust that it was good enough, because by the time a kid is old enough to cause trouble, there isn't much you can do any more.

I have always been shocked at kids and parents who scream at each other. Some parents unintentionally teach their kids how to fight them. It is horrifying enough for a parent when the kids are old enough to start going out alone - you don't need to add the stress of daily fights to that.

All that said, I just MIGHT listen in if I thought my kid was doing something illegal, but if you've done your job well, that shouldn't even be an issue.

[genieroze]

23. Especially if you can be held responsible. eom

[SoCalDem]

12. Here's how it would progress in California

Daughter talks to boyfriend about crime
Mother listens in, and does nothing
Boyfriend commits crime
Daughter is questioned, caves in
Daughter is prosecuted as an accessory
Mother must pay HUGE sum of money for "being a bad parent"

OR


Daughter talks to boyfriend about crime
Mother listens in, and calls the police
Mother is told that "until a crime happens, they cannot 'get involved'"
Boyfriend commits crime
Daughter is questioned, caves in
Daughter is prosecuted as an accessory
Mother must pay HUGE sum of money for "being a bad parent"

[Emboldened Chimp]

14. Meanwhile, the gov't can listen in on your conversation with your lawyer..

How ass-backwards will we get?

[Pithlet]

16. The article isn't clear

They don't say anywhere that the mother is going to be punished for doing it. All it looks like is this boy is going to get a new trail because such testimony should not have been admitted. And that I agree with.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Hmm, would the mother's testimony have been admissible if the

daughter and boyfriend had been discussing the crime, not knowing that the mother was home, and the mother had happened to hear it without the aid of any electronic equipment?

[sandnsea]

19. I pay the bill, my phone

I totally disagree with this. If I'm paying for something, I have the authority over it. I suppose this kid could have used the daughter's bedroom to stash his stolen property and it would have been fine if the mother didn't report it???

[vetwife]

25. Ridiculous......using the phone is a priviliedge here not a right !

If you screw up.....you lose the privilidege. Sorry I have listened and maybe saved our daughter's life with the crowd she was getting messed up with. We pay the phone bills and everything else. I get no privacy and I am the adult, why should the teenager?
Nope .......Trust has to be earned and once that trust is broken,,,,expect snooping from me everywhere ! Law don't like it....Take me away......I didn't turn out so bad and my Mother was always one jump ahead of me.

I don't think I am a bad parent. My future late daughter in law who was just murdered told me more than once she wished I had been her Mom and cared enough to keep her straight. She and my son broke up 5 months ago and she got messed up with the wrong crowd again and her new boyfriend did her in. She never had any type of disicipline or actual love shown to her. They were poor, uneducated but she had a heart. She just made some really bad choices in life and you can't start laying down rules when they are grown. It starts with No-No musn't touch !

[hinachan]

37. That's half right....

<< She just made some really bad choices in life and you can't start laying down rules when they are grown. It starts with No-No musn't touch !>>

And that's most parents' downfall. It starts with "No-no, mustn't touch", and culminates in a petty fight and "Because I say so!"

My mother treated me as if I had a brain from the beginning. It wasn't "Don't touch", it was, "If you touch that, you'll get hurt." I quickly learned that, hey, she's right...and if she's right about that, she's right about other things, too. Sure, we have arguments to this day, but there was always an underlying knowledge that I could tell her anything, and she'd listen. No stupid "I pay the bills" power struggles, just a secure knowledge that she was older, always there for me, she'd listen, she'd take action in my defense, if need be.

As a direct result of this, I grew up getting consistently good grades, not getting into trouble, never even DABBLING in drinking, smoking, or drugs. Not because I feared punishment, but because I knew it was wrong for me, and my mother lived her life as a good example (she isn't into drinking, smoking, or drugging, either). And no, I wasn't an exceptionally obedient child...I have one of the more difficult types of bipolar disorder to manage, and bipolar kids very often get into serious trouble, so Fate did NOT give her one of the best lumps of clay to mold into an adult. Oh, yeah, and I forgot to mention, she was a single parent because my father had died shortly after I was born, so that was another strike against me. ;)

If this sort of upbringing can do so much for someone with a severe mood disorder like mine, imagine what it could do for ordinary, healthy kids. The people who have the most trouble with their kids are, not coincidentally, those who try to exert the most authority and demand obedience without question. Any human being will rebel, even if that human being is your own child. And that's where all crime begins....

[bunny planet]

72. Well aren't you special.

[stlsaxman]

26. The mom should have appointed herself DA of the house and issued...

herself a warrent for wiretapping. Done.

[sendero]

30. That's really funny..

.... since the courts ruled long ago that no user of a cordless (not cell) phone has any reasonable expectation of privacy since they are so trivial to intercept.

I guess if she'd used a scanner instead of an extension, that would have been ok.

The judge is a moron and does not have precedent on his side.

[Tradnor]

33. Wrong

This wasn't one judge, this was the unanimous judgment of the Washington State Supreme Court, and in fact they do have precedent on their side.

To quote from their opinion:

The State contends that the parties' expectation of privacy was not reasonable because they should have known that someone could have been listening in to their call. We have repeatedly held that the mere possibility that intrusion on otherwise private activities is technologically feasible does not strip citizens of their privacy rights.

And for those who focus on the parent/child issue:

The federal wiretap statute, which makes interception of communications legal where one party consents, has been interpreted to permit parents acting to protect the welfare of a child, to consent vicariously for their child to the recording of their child's conversations.... 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.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=748390MAJ

[sendero]

39. I stand corrected...

... concerning the law. I stand by my position on the reasonableness of the Federal law.

Talking on a cordless phone is like talking on a walkie-talkie. If you think it is private, you are sorely misinformed.

[truthisfreedom]

36. i wish this particular judge would take a peek at the patriot act for us.

might turn that sucker on it's ear.

[Sterling]

59. True.

It's great they are protecting the kids rights but what about the rest of us.

[noonwitch]

40. This is a bad ruling

If parents pay the bill, they should get to listen in on their kids' calls. That's life. And if those kids are plotting or discussing crimes, then she has a responsibility to report the conversation to the authorities. Parents of underage kids should have the right to read their mail, listen to their phone calls, deny them playstation privileges, ground them, make them go to school, and test them for drugs. Reasonable parents use these rights in a reasonable way, as rewards and consequences for the responsibility (or lack of) shown by the kids.

I draw the line at reading kids' diaries. I do think that a kid should always have one private way to express him or herself that no one else can see.

[StuckinKS]

49. Who pays the bill!

Now parents should have their kids sign an affidavit stating that they understand that they have no expectation of privacy on a phone they don't pay for in a house that they don't pay for.

[ernstbass]

42. If you have to spy on your kids to find out

what they are up to, you are in deep shit already.

[lcbart]

45. If you don't -

and you think you know everything you should - you're vastly disillusioned.

Three teenage daughters taught me reality.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

47. Do you have kids? Were you ever a teenager?

The crap my parents never found out about could fill a waste recycling plant.

[Mike Daniels]

48. Precisely. I had a typical (in a good way) relationship with my parents

in high school but 20 years down the road there is still a ton of stuff that happened that they still don't know about and probably never will.

Anyone who thinks their kids are always 100 pecent totally open with them is sniffing something.

[Occulus]

50. It's dangerous *to the child* for them to be 100% open and honest.

I should know- that's exactly what my own parents expected out of me, and I was utterly foolish enough to try to appease them. The end result was that I never felt as if I could do anything that was "against their wishes", and ended up missing out on more than a few experiences I now wish I had had with my friends. I ended up being socially backward for a long, long time precisely because I lacked the self-confidence to act without some higher authority's permission. In many ways, that's the case even now.

There's a happy medium between allowing your children total privacy and requiring of your children total openness that many parents, for whatever (almost certainly legitimate) reason, cannot find. Some are worse at it than others. They all try, but if they see their children as (as another poster earlier put it) objects or little carbon-copies of themselves, well... the kid can end up really messed up.

[lcbart]

43. It may not stand up in court.....

But while I regulate the flow of money, electronic entertainment, travel and tuition through my house it still qualifies as a valid evidence gathering mechanism.

( and it's much more acceptable than torture )

[tiredofthisstuff]

51. People wonder why kids are F***ed up today!!!!

I am just a kid myself (26), but I vividly remember as a teenager my mom listening in on my phone conversations. It angered me as a teen but in hindsight I am glad she did. I realized that she was just looking out for me. I feel it is necessary to keep tabs on your children as a parent. How else are parents supposed to know what their children are doing behind their back.

[winston61]

53. what a crock

Let's see here.. A minor child living under my roof that I pay for, talking on cordless phone that I also pay for and I can't regulate my child's conduct. First of all there is no expectation of privacy on a cordless phone. Second of all this is still a minor child that I have charge of. What an absurd ruling and now the mother is open to a civil lawsuit from the convicted criminal. What a country!

[Kimber Scott]

55. As long as I'm responsible for the actions of my children I have the right

to know what they are doing. Especially, in my own home.

[Sterling]

57. It looks like you don't after all in WA.

That's one for the kids, hell's yeah!!!

[Kimber Scott]

76. Hells no. I'll gladly go to jail to protect my children - from themselves

It's what parents are for. That judge can kiss my ass, unless he wants to take my boys home and raise them himself... Otherwise, if I feel the need to snoop, I'll snoop.

[Mari333]

60. As a parent, first thing Id do is remove the phones

from the house. Get myself a cell phone. A kid that age should be paying their own phone bills if they want a phone. They want to be treated like an adult, let them take on the adult responsibilities of paying their own way. Id also charge rent . I raised 3 sons. If they want to live with me now as adults, they have to pay rent.

[Scairp]

75. Excellent!

That's a great idea. That is what the mother in this case should do now. If her daughter is going to play that little game then she can pay for her own damn phone. Personally, I don't believe that any court anywhere is going to charge some parent with illegal wiretapping, or whatever you call it, for listening in on the phone they pay for. This ruling is idiotic.

[countryjake]

61. Obviously, that mother seems to have been raised the same way

A person who never learned what simple respect & honesty really means probably would have a hard time imparting the knowledge on to her kids.


http://www.kirotv.com/news/3987420/detail.html

>snip<

In an unrelated case, Carmen Dixon recently pleaded guilty to misappropriating $129,000 from the Postal Service when she was postmaster of Friday Harbor. She admitted in U.S. District Court that she issued money orders to herself and her family from bulk mailing fees and took money from stamp sales. The money was diverted between January 2002 and last May.

Dixon faces a maximum 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine when she is sentenced April 1.

[RuleofLaw]

63. This is very basic

Some states have laws that says that you can only listen in or record a conversation if you have the consent of all people involved. Other states says only one party needs to approve.

In some states you cannot record a conversation you are having with another person, unless you let that person know of the recording (Florida.

while Georgia allows you to do it.

Basic rule interpretation and it has nothing to do with parental rights.

Linda Tripp got nailed for it in Virginia when she recorded her conversations with Monica Lewinsky without the consent on Lewinsky.

[countryjake]

68. And that's why the kid's conviction was overturned...getting new trial

From Kiro News:

"Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child's conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.

"The Washington statute ... tips the balance in favor of individual privacy at the expense of law enforcement's ability to gather evidence without a warrant," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous Supreme Court opinion."

[happyslug]

64. Lets get the legal issue straight before we go on to many tangents.

This is a CRIMINAL case involving the Boyfriend (Hereafter called "Boy") of the Daughter (Hereafter called "Girl") of the person who listen into the conversation (Hereafter called "Mother").

The Court Ruled that the Mother had no right to listen into the conversation AND REPORT THAT CONVERSATION TO THE POLICE. Note the court did NOT say that the Mother did not have the right to listen in on the conversation.

The Court ruled that Boy had the right to expect privacy when he called up Girl. The Court did NOT address the issue whether Girl had the Right to expect privacy. The Court did NOT have to address that issue to resolve the case.

Thus it is possible for the same court to rule that Girl had no expectation of privacy when she used her mother's cordless phone. Remember Girl did NOT participate in the crime, she only heard what Boy told her. Mother reported what Boy told Girl. The Court only ruled that the BOY had expectation of Privacy not that the Girl had any such expectations.

Here is the actual Decision:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=748390MAJ

[Left in IL]

65. A lot of you are missing the point.

IL has a law like WA that requires ALL PARTY consent.

The problem wasn't a parent listening to a child, as the parent could easily say, you can only use the phone in front of me.

The problem is on the other end of the line. The 17 yr old boy has an expecation of privacy. In WA like IL you must get the consent of ALL parties to eavesdrop or record.

So in this case the Judges made the only desicion they could under WA law, which states that the girlfirend's mother hand no right to listen to the 17 yr old boy's conversation without his consent.

In Illinois this also covers any form of electronic communication. So technically an employer cannot read or store your e-mail without the consent of ALL recipents.

[happyslug]

67. IT is even worse

Under the Washington Statute any intercepted conversation can NOT be used in any trial. Thus this was NOT a constitutional question but one of statutory interpretation. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a Cordless phone is the device for communicating NOT the base unit the cordless phone is receiving the call from. That is ALL the court ruled. Once the Court ruled on that issue the statute is quite clear, the conversation is NOT admissible into any court.

My point is do not take this case to far, what the Prosecutors in the case wanted was a ruling that the Receiving device was NOT the cordless phone but the base unit. If the base unit was the Receiving Unit, than under the statute, the Mother was part of the conversation for she had control over the base unit.

A real technical statutory interpretation case, not one of constitutional importance.

[RaulGroom]

69. Ha, beat me to it n/t

[countryjake]

70. Thanks for some reasoning!

It sure is easy to get caught up in other's reactions on this board!

Hey, RaulGroom, that last question you've asked is a doozy! I say no.

[RaulGroom]

66. Illogic Abounds

Whose privacy rights are at issue here?

All of these posts seem concerned with whether a teen has a reasonable expectation of privacy while talking on a phone in her parents' home. The violated privacy rights, as they pertain to this case, are those of the purse snatcher. Did he have a reasonable expectation not to be spied on by a woman who is not living in his house or paying for his phone line?

The Columbine argument is so obviously spurious it is almost absurd to deal with it. But since it seems to have at least a little traction, here goes. First of all, the law makes a distinction between knowledge about a crime that's being planned vs. one that's already been committed. A "fruit of the poison tree" defense, looking to throw out the massive evidence of a conspiracy to commit mass murder that would clearly have been uncovered by a search of the Columbine kids' homes, would not have been laughed out of court, but it would not have held up.

Subtler is the unspoken, lone assumed drawback of the remote possibility of such a defense actually holding up in court - that Dylan and Klebold could not have been sent to prison for criminal conspiracy if their plot had been uncovered in advance. Would prison (until early adulthood, most likely) have been a good solution to the revelation that two teenagers felt so isolated and enraged that they were prepared to go to school and kill everyone they could find?

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

74. Actually i'm shocked

about the people advocating the MASSIVE intrusion into peoples lives. Even when it's about their own children. Wiretapping Phones, Reading Mails, Urine Checks...

Where does the line go? Bugging? Diary reading?, Virginity Checks?, Keyloggers on their Computers? Trace Chips? Mind Bug if something like that should ever be inventet?

If you spew that "it's for your good" (or my lazyness, or lack of time or )you don't teach them privacy how can you expect them to wan't some from the government?

Sounds like desperate control bitches accidentally weirdbreeding fascists,half-a-rapists,nospines or revolutionaries hating you. Though i have no children so i admit i MIGHT be wrong about that "teach-by-orwell-love-is-control-method" perhaps it works...

But if that way you raise your children, i think you deserve no better from the government you have.(and from what it will eventually harvest for you...)! Children shouldn't endure worse than adults...

fascist for fascists by fascists.

or considering the amount of the female majority in this thread advocating such control stuff - a bush in every family?

And you are even considered "the left". Go vapor your self.

Unstable
Sorryasses' (S***s)
Armaggedonistan

(also goes by)

Atrocious
Multi
Ethnic
Rogue
Inbred
Control
Association

Heck got a wage raise, an offer for upgrading my partime to fulltime - what am i raving? That stuff just hit my wrong toe i guess