Eavesdropping on your child is illegal!
 

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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.

"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.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
================================================== ===

"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message
...
Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, on Fri, 10
Dec 2004 00:52:10 -0500 spoke:

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.

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Nice try, but not true.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:19:49 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
wrote:

That's bull****.

It's the MOM'S phone, she can damn well listen to ANYONE talking on it!

Sorry, incorrect.
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. In this case, if the
son was talking to a friend, and mom was monitoring, or recording, then it
would not be legal.

Problem now is, her son may have won the battle, but mom will win the war.

Bill Crocker


wrote in message
...
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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.

"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.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
================================================== ===

Bill Crocker wrote:

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. In this case, if the
son was talking to a friend, and mom was monitoring, or recording, then it
would not be legal.

Problem now is, her son may have won the battle, but mom will win the war.

I think you are absolutely correct in that assessment, Bill.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Bill Crocker

wrote in message
...
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.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

"It's ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,"
said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. "My daughter was out of control, and
that was the only way I could get information and keep track of
her. I did it all the time."

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a
friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court
because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The
justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen,
who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due
to the mother's testimony.

"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.

That right to individual privacy holds fast even when the
individuals are teenagers, the court ruled.

"I don't think the state should be in the position of
encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop
on their children," agreed attorney Douglas Klunder, who
filed a brief supporting Christensen on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Lacey Dixon, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a
massage therapy school, her mother proudly reported. Christensen's
whereabouts are unknown.

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone
conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said
she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
================================================== ===

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.

Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
made.

Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.
In some states, the recording is OK if one of the parties is doing
the recording (and therefore knows about it). In others, it's not.
ALL parties have to know.

In no state (and I believe this is also a federal law) is it legal
for the husband to monitor the conversation between his wife and
her lover (or, in the case referred to, for a mother to monitor the
conversation between her child and his friends).

Gordon L. Burditt

It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware.

Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a
recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep
is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being
made.

Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in.

Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations
cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in
California.

Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be")
in different states. Chances are if Mom is listening on her child
talking to his friends, they (all three) are in the same state.

Who's law would apply ?

In some states, the recording is OK if one of the parties is doing
the recording (and therefore knows about it). In others, it's not.
ALL parties have to know.

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. It sounds like you state one
thing and then contradict yourself.

Different states have different rules. Some require ONE party to know,
others require that ALL parties know. Read the front section of your
phone book; chances are your state's rules are mentioned there.

But, again, recording/wire-tap laws are determined at the federal level. Any
state laws are superseded by federal law anyway.

This isn't the case if the federal law defers to the state. It's
my understanding that federal law requires that AT LEAST one party
knows about the recording, and that some states have stricter rules.

Just like California has a state law allowing medical pot use. The federal
government doesn't recognize this law and will prosecute anyone using
"medical" pot. It's a hot topic. Federal always has and always will take
precedence over state law.

Only if the laws conflict. For example, the Federal Do Not Call List
didn't abolish all the Do Not Call Lists in states that had them.
A law can explicitly say that the states are free to impose higher
penalties. Federal regulations capping speed limits on highways (for
energy-conservation purposes) don't prevent states from putting
a lower speed limit on a section of highway (for safety, noise,
revenue enhancement, or other reasons).

Gordon L. Burditt

Thought for the day...When your child who is under 18 commits a crime
and that crime cost somebody $$$'s, does the kid pay? Or does the
parent pay? Is the state willing to pay the legal fees? If a parent
can't eaves drop on a minor child, when they believe their child is
doing something illegal or unnacceptable, in their home that they are
paying for and the phone that they are paying for, then the state
shouldn't hold the parent financially accountable. THAT'S my ever so
humble GOOD parent opinion. Carmen, right or wrong...I would have done
the same thing...

As I wrote elsewhere . . .

Good! Young children shouldn't be using the phone. If they are old enough
to responsibly use the phone for personal conversations, then the parents
should mind their own business. This ruling is right and just. It is also
surprising, as courts rarely rule on the side of common sense. -Dave

Why is it OK for an employer to monitor their adult employees but not
OK for a mother to monitor her minor child?


Because the employer makes you sign all your rights away as a condition of
employment. For the same thing to happen in a mother/child relationship,
the legal documents would have to be signed by an embryo. -Dave