Washington State Parents Must Redefine Duties
State's privacy laws apply to children, too

Parents take note:

In a case of snooping parents vs. their children, a mother's eavesdropping on a telephone conversation between the woman's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend violated the children's privacy, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The high court unanimously reversed a 2000 robbery conviction against Oliver Christensen, 22, of Friday Harbor, in a case based in part on the testimony of the mother and what she heard in that telephone conversation.

"The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court" ....

.... Attorneys for the state argued that minors should have a reduced expectation of privacy because parents have an absolute right to monitor phone calls coming into the family home. The attorneys cited provisions in federal wiretap law which are less restrictive than Washington's law and allow parents to tape and listen to their children's conversations.

"The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now," wrote Justice Tom Chambers in the court's opinion.

Seattle Times (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=eavesdrop10m&date=20041210)

I'm nearly speechless. Given that children do not have constitutional rights under the federal scheme--e.g. Miranda Act does not apply--I .... I ....

I wonder if I'll be exempt from lawsuits based on my daughter's conduct if I can't survey her doings? One must wonder what the implications will be for online internet predators. Maybe Washington jailbait will be easier to get now.

Personally, I think the DA should turn around and charge the girl with aiding and abetting by concealing knowledge related to a crime.

In the meantime, let's hear a cheer for states' rights, eh?

Douglas Klunder, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the opinion reinforces the state's reputation as a strong guardian of personal privacy.

Klunder said the primary issue before the high court was whether the use of an extension or speaker phone was considered eavesdropping. A secondary issue was whether there was an exception in the case of parents and their children.

Attorneys for the state argued that minors should have a reduced expectation of privacy because parents have an absolute right to monitor phone calls coming into the family home. The attorneys cited provisions in federal wiretap law which are less restrictive than Washington's law and allow parents to tape and listen to their children's conversations.

Seattle Times (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=eavesdrop10m&date=20041210)
________________________

Notes:
Clarridge, Christine. "Eavesdropping against law even for parent, court says". SeattleTimes.com, December 10, 2004. See http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=eavesdrop10m&date=20041210
See Also -
Dunnewind, Stephanie. "Parents assert right to listen in on kids". SeattleTimes.com, December 14, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002118807_privacyfolo14.html

Brodeur, Nicole. "Parents have right to snoop". SeattleTimes.com, December 14, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002118759_brodeur14m.html

I'm kinda confused about the poll . . . I agree with the Supreme Court's rulings, so does that mean that I should choose "Agree"?

Yes. The rest is clear, though?

Not a parent.

But tey should absolutely have the right to listen to a child's conversations. They should have the right to search through their personal effects. These actions are the mark of a good parent; a parent that is concerned for the safety and well-being of their child. It does not have to be done in a "raid-the-barracks" style, but society cannot hold a parent responsible for the actions of their children if the state is going to determine what is acceptable parenting. This is another example of government needing to stay out of people's homes. Parents have enough hurdles to negotiate without having one arm tied behind their back... to one of their legs.

:m: Peace.

as long as the parent is responsible for the childs actions, the parent must be able te control(to an extent) and monitor those actions. i hardlry think that it would be fair for my parents to have to pay a fine a my behalf if they were inable to have stopped me

They should have the right to search through their personal effects. These actions are the mark of a good parent; a parent that is concerned for the safety and well-being of their child. It does not have to be done in a "raid-the-barracks" style, but society cannot hold a parent responsible for the actions of their children if the state is going to determine what is acceptable parenting.

I used to hide things I didn't want found, and my mother would, inevitably, find them. (She once determined I'd had a girl over based on two pieces of lint, and then raided my room looking for evidence of sexual conduct, which, of course, she found.)

The thing was, however, aside from the underwear, she would generally claim to have found whatever she found (detention slips, lighters, &c) when she was "putting pencils in the top drawer" of my desk.

You know, the shallow, long drawer? Not the top drawer of the three boxes, but the shallow pencil drawer.

Who, I ask you, hides their stuff right there, bang, in the front of a shallow drawer to be seen by anybody looking for a pencil?

That always bugged me. Obviously, the search, but more to the point that my mother, otherwise a pillar of propriety, would dare lie to me on these points. Don't compound the injury of being busted with insult.

To the other, the 1990s saw the rise and fall of an amazing parental moment: A drug-testing company released to the market a home kit in which you were to sneak into your child's room while they sleep, cut a lock of their hair, and then mail it to the lab for testing.

And nowadays, I hear that there's a grain of truth at least in the South Park plotline of putting tracking devices on children.

I wonder how these systems would hold up under Washington's privacy shield.

On another track, it strikes me that this finding comes now, during our War on Terror. While I won't rumormonger any conspiracy theories, I do wonder if maybe the judge just doesn't like this law, and made an inappropriate and absurd ruling in order to compel the legislature to tinker with it. The police have had it in their sights since WTO-Seattle, even though their complaints that it interfered with their ability to prepare for the event bore no merit.

man, you need to hide your stuff better

I don’t think this was a case of the court deciding that parents don’t have the right to monitor their children so much as the court sticking with a strict interpretation of the law. Washington state law says that it’s illegal for anyone to monitor the telephone conversation of anyone without the consent of everyone involved in the conversation. Since there isn’t an exception for parents and their kids built into the law, the court doesn’t really have a choice. Of course it’s almost certainly the case that when the state legislature made the law they worded it carelessly and it didn’t even occur to them that they would technically be prohibiting parents from monitoring their children – but never the less, the court has to go by what the law actually says rather than by what they think it should say.

so parents acnt listen to children using their own phone, yet police can listen to you phone and not even tell you

Schools can search their (childrens) lockers without warrent. And then there is the push for parental notification laws (not sure if washington state has that). The judge is wrong in my opinion.