Quantcast

A high court victory for rebellious teenagers

  • Come enter the Ridemonkey Secret Santa!

    We're kicking off the 2024 Secret Santa! Exchange gifts with other monkeys - from beer and snacks, to bike gear, to custom machined holiday decorations and tools by our more talented members, there's something for everyone.

    Click here for details and to learn how to participate.

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Now this is one dicked up ruling since the actions of a minor child are the responsibility of the parent. Enforcement isn't going to easy nor popular.
:dead:


Court: Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law
AP Wire via Yahoo! | Dec 9,11:32 PM ET

SEATTLE - 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 case started with a purse-snatching four years ago that shocked the island town of Friday Harbor, population 2,000. Two young men knocked down an elderly woman, breaking her glasses, and stole her purse. Christensen, then 17, was a suspect.

Sheriff Bill Cumming asked Dixon, whose daughter was friends with Christensen, to be alert for any possible evidence. When Christensen called the Dixon house later, Lacey Dixon, then 14, took the cordless phone into her bedroom and shut the door. The mother hit the "speakerphone" button and took notes on the conversation — in which Christensen said he knew where the purloined purse was.

The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it forbids courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping.

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.

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.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it forbids courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping.

That's the key line. It isn't stopping them from snopping but it does stop it from being used in a court of law....
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,165
1,261
NC
N8, you've been on a spree with these rediculous articles lately.

This has nothing to do with parents or kids, it has to do with the fact that the laws in Washington say that all parties must know when a conversation is being recorded. Whoop dee doo. There's no precedent here - this was existing law.