Mom's Eavesdropping Violated Law according to Big Brother

[tek]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ental_snooping

Great, we need more government meddling in our homes. That and biometric ID's.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich. Heil.

[lastchance]

Sweet. Honestly, I can't see anything wrong with this. Then again, I'm only in high school.

[mmcd]

The mothers not getting arrested or anything for listening in on the phone call. It's just that they can't use what she heard as evidence to convict the boyfriend of purse-snatching. Seems pretty clear cut to me. If she doesn't want her daughter dating this guy because of what she overheard, thats fine, but when she takes notes and turns them over to the cops, thats definately over-reaching on her part.

[ddollevoet]

What if mom overheard that her daughter's boyfriend was going to knock over a convenience store... and someone gets killed? I pretty sure she could be charged then.

Bottom line: minor children have no rights in their parent's homes. They earn trust. They receive priviledges.

If this was my daughter, she'd never use the phone again.

[mmcd]

What if mom overheard that her daughter's boyfriend was going to knock over a convenience store... and someone gets killed? I pretty sure she could be charged then.

Actually no.

The whole thing has nothing to do with the rights of parents to supervise their children. It only concerns what type of evidence can be used in court.

Anyways, I'm off to knock over a convenience store. (IGNORE THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL!!!)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It only concerns what type of evidence can be used in court

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly is what it sounds like because of the last line. If that is the case, it is a very poorly written article.

[mmcd]

From the WA Supreme Court Opinion:

A mother, using the speakerphone function of the family's cordless telephone system, surreptitiously listened to a conversation between her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend in which a crime was discussed. The mother was permitted to testify against the boyfriend at his trial about what she overheard. We conclude that under the Washington privacy act, the conversation in question was a private one and the base unit of the cordless telephone was a device designed to transmit. We reverse.


STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 24, 2000, two young men approached an elderly woman walking down the street in Friday Harbor, Washington. One of the men grabbed the woman's purse and, after a struggle in which the woman fell and broke her glasses, the young men fled with the purse.
San Juan County Sheriff Bill Cumming suspected Oliver Christensen, a local 17- year-old, of involvement in the robbery. He believed that evidence of the robbery might be found in the house of Christensen's then-girl friend, Lacey Dixon. Sheriff Cumming contacted Mrs. Dixon, Lacey's mother, and obtained her consent to search her home for evidence of the crime. He found no evidence in Mrs. Dixon's home, but asked her to keep a lookout for any evidence of the crime that might surface.
Christensen later telephoned Lacey. When he called, Mrs. Dixon answered the telephone. She handed the cordless handset to her daughter, who took it upstairs into her bedroom and closed the door. Mrs. Dixon activated the speakerphone function of the cordless telephone system by pressing a button on the base unit. Mrs. Dixon took notes from the conversation she overheard, in which Christensen acknowledged to Lacey that he was aware that police suspected him of the robbery and that he knew the whereabouts of the purse, but not that he had taken part in the robbery. Neither Christensen nor Lacey knew of, or consented to, Mrs. Dixon listening to their conversation.
Over Christensen's objection at trial, Mrs. Dixon testified as to the substance of the conversation she overheard. In addition to Mrs. Dixon, the State offered the testimony of four other witnesses, only one of whom could identify Christensen as a participant in the robbery. That witness, an acquaintance of Christensen's, had agreed to testify for the State on the same day he agreed to plead guilty to the same robbery. He testified that on the night of the robbery, he had been high on methamphetamine during a meth binge but remembered Christensen being involved in the robbery. Christensen was convicted of second degree robbery.


The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to admit Mrs. Dixon's testimony. We granted review.


DISCUSSION

We must decide whether this state's privacy act was violated when Mrs. Dixon listened to the conversation between Christensen and Lacey on the base unit of the cordless telephone without their permission. The act provides that it is unlawful for any individual to intercept, or record any: "private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication." RCW 9.73.030(1)(a). Evidence obtained in violation of the act is inadmissible for any purpose at trial….

[37offsuit]

This law protects us from government interference. If you don't need consent from the participants to record "private" conversations, then what is to stop the government from doing it in the first place? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[jcx]

So the NSA can use their eavesdropping equipment anytime in the interest of "National Security" but you can't monitor calls on a phone line you pay for? This problem can be solved quite simply. Make everyone in your household sign a standard release form giving authorization to monitor calls. Anyone who has ever worked at a call center has had to sign one.

[37offsuit]

Or you can raise your children to not associate with known criminals. Just a thought.