Steff Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 2 hours, 29 minutes ago Top Stories - AP 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. The boyfriend will get a new trial. Unreal... :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Pathetic. It's her phone, why the hell can't she listen in calls made on her line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 what bs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Some of these judges have got to go. :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Let me get this straight...My daughter is on the phone with a purse snatching criminal and I should just say, "Enjoy your conversation, dear," and let it be. The hell with that! :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Now that is utterly ridiculous. A parent is responsible for everything their kids do, but they can't do anything to find out what their kids are doing, within their own house, on the phone that they are paying for???? Are you f***ing kidding me? To quote the Eagles... "Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Now that is utterly ridiculous. A parent is responsible for everything their kids do, but they can't do anything to find out what their kids are doing, within their own house, on the phone that they are paying for???? Are you f***ing kidding me? To quote the Eagles... "Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight!" How can you do that??? HOW! Dont you realize that trial lawyers can raise your kids better than their parents can!? I say we should have one in every home to act as an oversight and make sure that parents follow the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 My understanding is the ruling was more for eavesdropping on the other kid, not her kid. Mexico has a much better system. Guilty until proven innocent. You have to work your ass off to be found innocent in Mexico if the cops think you did something. The burden isn't on the state, it is on the accused, or as they would say the criminal. The cops there think you shoplifted something you are tossed in jail until you can prove you didn't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 My understanding is the ruling was more for eavesdropping on the other kid, not her kid. Mexico has a much better system. Guilty until proven innocent. You have to work your ass off to be found innocent in Mexico if the cops think you did something. The burden isn't on the state, it is on the accused, or as they would say the criminal. The cops there think you shoplifted something you are tossed in jail until you can prove you didn't do it. Even though our system has a s***load of flaws, I'll stick with the American way. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Even though our system has a s***load of flaws, I'll stick with the American way. Thank you. But when you see a assclown like this purse snatcher rotting in jail instead of whining about his rights, it feels good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 But when you see a assclown like this purse snatcher rotting in jail instead of whining about his rights, it feels good. I can't argue that point. But still, I like our Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I can't argue that point. But still, I like our Constitution. So do I. But as many people pointed out, this purse snatcher is free because we cannot eavesdrop on his call to his girlfriend. I don't think any of us would mind if the government monitored all our calls. Wireless already has the potential. Any hobbyist with a chip change can scan the wireless phone frequencies. It's illegal, but I bet entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 They were both MINORS. I can't believe that this was even an issue. When my kids are 13, maybe I have them sign a contract that says I reserve the right to listen to any phone conversation under my roof until they are 18... :rolly :rolly :rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 They were both MINORS. I can't believe that this was even an issue. When my kids are 13, maybe I have them sign a contract that says I reserve the right to listen to any phone conversation under my roof until they are 18... :rolly :rolly :rolly The article I read said the ruling had basically zero to do with the daughter, but every thing to do with the person the daughter was talking to. Do you mind if anyone and everyone was allowed to eavesdrop on your kid's conversation? I know I don't want some pedophile being able to listening when my daughter is talking with a friend. This ruling basically protects us from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 So do I. But as many people pointed out, this purse snatcher is free because we cannot eavesdrop on his call to his girlfriend. I don't think any of us would mind if the government monitored all our calls. Wireless already has the potential. Any hobbyist with a chip change can scan the wireless phone frequencies. It's illegal, but I bet entertaining. friend used to have a simple hand scanner with modified antenae and we had all the frequencies so we could pick up wireless phone convos nearby and other things such as fast food drive thrus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 But when you see a assclown like this purse snatcher rotting in jail instead of whining about his rights, it feels good. This isn't really about his rights as an American, though, it's just a Washington law. I don't really like any of those "both parties" laws on telephone conversations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.