wrote in message
...
Byron Canfield wrote:

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mark wrote:
I don't understand why the issue had to come up. I would infer from
the article that the mother testified that she overheard this other
kid
admit to a crime. So she testifies to what she heard someone else
say,
and what was said was taken as fact? I thought that was hearsay -
inadmissable regardless of how it was obtained.

Well, I think you hit on it. The AP article (and the original poster of
the
thread) made a distinct point of misquoting the court case in order to
create a sensational headline, solely for the purpose of riling
everybody.

Oh?

Well, I posted this and here are the AP headers and 1st paragraph:

Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law

SEATTLE (AP) - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the
state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated
Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone
conversation.

--which confirms my statement, as it is made clear, later in the article
that the AP summation is extrapolating, rather than quoting the court
decision; that the court merely ruled that evidence collected in that manner
was inadmissible in court..


--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield