Late last year, Carmen Dixon, a mom in Friday Harbor was told that her testimony against Oliver Christensen was invalidated because it was based on an intercepted phone conversation. A state Supreme Court judge ruled that eavesdropping on a conversation between her 14-year-old daughter and boyfriend violated the child's "privacy".
At 14-years old, you don't get privacy; you get food, an allowance, and a roof over your head.
The judge wasn't convinced and reversed a 2000 robbery conviction of Christensen, the 14-year-old girl's boyfriend because it was mostly due to Dixon's testimony.
With the hopes that this legal loophole can be closed, there are two bills being discussed in both the state House and Senate on parental exemptions from state privacy laws. The Seattle P-I reports:
Parents would be allowed to eavesdrop on their children's phone conversations or intercept their mail under a bill that went before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.So it seems a few Democrats don't like the fact that the bill would allow parents to intercept their children's mail. Perhaps they can tell us all the last time a child paid the mortgage. This reaction isn't entirely shocking considering these are the same people who think a teenage girl should legally be allowed to suck a child from her womb without parental consent. A Senate bill examines similar issues:The law is being proposed in the wake of a recent state Supreme Court ruling that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation.
Under House Bill 1178, not only would the parent not be breaking the law by snooping on a child's phone calls, any information a parent gleans from the intercepted communications could be used in court. But some have expressed concern about the bill's language, which allows calls to be recorded and mail to be intercepted.
Sen. Pam Roach, R-Sumner, has introduced a similar bill in the Senate (SB 5081). Her bill does not call for recording conversations or providing evidence, it just states that it is not illegal for a parent or legal guardian to monitor his or her own child's telephone conversations. That measure had a public hearing last month.Exactly. Both bills should get equal consideration. While yes, recording a child's phone conversation seems a little obsessive and bizarre, it certainly shouldn't be against the law--not in the age of "gee I didn't know my child was building an assault rifle in the basement"."I believe the loophole needs to be closed to protect the right of parents to parent," she said. "The last thing you want is your own child complaining that you're breaking the law. They shouldn't have that kind of leverage over parents' ability to parent."
Contrary to what frumpy Michael Moore may maintain, KMart wasn't responsible for Columbine; ignorant parenting was.
Posted by Ambra Nykol at February 03, 2005 01:55 AM | Email ThisOne more thing: howcomeisit a child has to get parental permission to get a tattoo and (soon) piercings, but they don't have to get parental permission for an abortion - a medical procedure that you can die from?
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on February 3, 2005 04:40 AMFrom their youth (as was I) it was taught 'in no uncertain terms', that there is no place / group in this world that LOVES you more or has more of your best interests in mind.
Do we as parents 'have the right to'. . .?
Not a question!
There is no other people as 'RESPONSIBLE' for the actions of our own youth.
This reminds me of the family motto: "Wherever you go, whatever you do, DON'T forget you wear your family's name."
Translation: "You are taking us with you, whether you can see us or not."
To the degree that this legitlation allows the fomer but prohibits the latter, I'm all for it.
However, to the degree that this legitlation would allow the police to recruit parents to do what they cannot and should not be able to do without a warrent I am opposed to it.
Think about it. Suppose that the police think that you are quilty of a crime, but they don;t have grounds to get a warrant to wiretap your phone. Should they be allowed to recruit to your child to listen in on your conversation on a speaker-phone? NO!
Posted by: dpk on February 3, 2005 06:19 AMSo acting on the information from the Sheriff, this mother decided then to monitor her kid's phone conversations with this boy. Thereby becoming an agent for the state and didn't have authority to violate this kid's civil protections.
The issue here is whether secret recordings or intercepted conversations can be used in court. And, used in court against a non-child.
There's no real issue of interfering in the supervision of a parent. The real issue in the original legal case was how much use can be made of the supervision, even SECRET SUPERVISION, of children that we currently totally ALLOW can be used IN COURT, particularly against non-children.
Again, the parent-child relationship is not being regulated here, it's courtroom evidence that is being regulated.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 3, 2005 08:39 AMI'd say listen in on.
Posted by: Sandy P on February 3, 2005 08:47 AMdpk wrote: "Think about it. Suppose that the police think that you are quilty of a crime, but they don;t have grounds to get a warrant to wiretap your phone. Should they be allowed to recruit to your child to listen in on your conversation on a speaker-phone? NO!"
This assertion doesn't even make sense. If you're going to talk about what could potentially happen, it'd be the opposite--parents being recruited by the police. A child couldn't be recruited by the police unless the parent allowed.
Posted by: Ambra Nykol on February 3, 2005 08:57 AMOr in any case of a crime, aren't we all required to report it, even if only by conscience? Isn't that what hotlines like Crime Stoppers and shows like America's Most Wanted are about? We're always being recruited to help the authorities catch criminals, and a lot of it involves a bit of eavesdropping, whether accidental or not.
Or am I missing the point, since this was a case of her over-hearing him incriminate himself, instead of actually witnessing the crime, or looking for a known wanted criminal?
Posted by: Amber on February 3, 2005 09:11 AMThe entire judge's brief is over there.
And I agree with all of you, A parent's right to protect their children should always supercede the privacy act.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on February 3, 2005 09:36 AMNo.
And most especially not in this instance since the boyfriend was 22 years-old while the girl was 14-years-old and a MINOR. You don't get a right to privacy when you act like a pervert (although arguably, MIchael Jackson overwhelmingly has...but that's another post)
Posted by: Ambra Nykol on February 3, 2005 09:50 AMBut pertaining to this story, what was the 14 yr old girl/child doing with a 22 year old MAN. He should have known better. But the mother should be investigated by CPS, for allowing the Girlfriend/Boyfriend relationship in the first place. (my moral opinion only)
Posted by: Chris on February 3, 2005 09:57 AMNo one is saying the parent can't discipline the child, but Washington is a "two party consent state" meaning that to record a phone conversation both sides have to agree on the record. Other states are "one party consent states", where one side's agreement is sufficient. Even two party states have exceptions for certain felonies, harrassment, etc., as does Washington state.
The statute states generally that where two party consent is not present the conversation is not admissible in court, and taping it may be a misdemeanor. The purpose of the statute is to maintain privacy.
The case referred to was unanimous and basically says that while you can monitor your own children adn then discipline them, don't plan on using that secret monitoring in court against other people.
It sounds like a good idea to me to amend the statute to say it doesn't apply to conversations monitored by parents with children under 18. But the problem with the original article is that it sets up a straw man that parents "aren't allowed" to monitor their chilrdren. Not true.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 3, 2005 10:38 AMThe bill may be right (depending on how it is drafted precisely) but the description of the problem and the criticism of the legal ruling as insane is not fair unless you believe in judicial activism.
Posted by: Paul R. Lehto on February 3, 2005 10:41 AMCould we please not make this another abortion debate?
From what I've gathered, even the ACLU has signed onto SB 5081, so that should have a pretty easy time finding supporters from both sides.
While people are railing at the judges in this case, it seems that they were just doing what Republicans are usually demanding that they do. Read the law as written and apply it. I don't like the results of that, but I'm also of the impression that a judge's job is to interpret and follow current law, not toss it out and make new law when he sees fit. Even when they make law that I agree with, I think it's the wrong way to do so.
Apparently the legislature did not take this situation into consideration when they wrote the privacy law, and are now fixing it.
Nobody is even contemplating charging the mother with any crime, and have gone out of their way to make this clear. Still, just to ensure that some wacko prosecutor that wants to make a national name for himself doesn't do so in the future, the change is needed.
Besides contacting our legislators and urging them to support this change, I'm really not sure what all the hubbub is about.
My own daughter, 11, has no privacy as far as I'm concerned. She knows that.
As long as these children are under my roof, as long as they depend on me for food, clothing, money, etc... and as long as I am legally responsible for them - their rights to privacy are limited to what they can keep from each other, not from me and my husband.
Rights to privacy should start when they have to right to be a legal adult. I guarantee our forefathers did not have in mind when writing the Constitution that children should make the rules in the house and have more rights than their parents.... talk about the change of times...
Posted by: manderson on February 3, 2005 01:28 PMFrom Todd:
"I think the real concern the democrats have is that the pedophiles among them dont want those tapes used in court against them."
From manderson:
By the way, Todd, I agree with your suggestion. It would be interesting to compile the voting history statistics of convicted pedofiles and see what direction they tend to lean in.
Maybe the minor-predator sting operations should be focused more on lefty-dominant political websites- catch more of them...
Will you people listen to yourselves? Some judges (party unknown) refuse to legislate from the bench the way you want them to, and you seriously propose that this is evidence that Democrats are pedophiles?
SB 5081 has broad support. Even the ACLU is behind it. Democrats and Republicans can agree on this one.
"Testimony in support offered to the Senate Human Services & Corrections Committee on January 18, 2005, by Rose Gunderson, citizen; Jennifer Shaw, ACLU of Washington. They testified that Parents have a responsibility to track influences in their childrens lives so that they can provide guidance. Monitoring childrens conversations is one way to find out if they risk getting involved with drugs or are engaging other destructive behavior. Whether or not it is a preferred parenting style, parents should be able to check on their childrens phone conversations without committing a criminal act. Parents should be able to monitor and control what is going on in their own houses.
Now, let's pass this thing and move on.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 3, 2005 04:53 PMGood to hear that "we're" fixing this issue, too bad it can't be retro active for all the cases still on the dockets statewide in this category, (or can it...Paul R. Lehto??)
Also if it is O.K. to do this for a felony, then why is it not O.K. when the discussion (in this case) actually talked about a real crime (robbery; a felony) that took place. Sounds like splitting hairs to me. But I'm not a lawyer
Oh and John Barelli, I'm past this, I'm just trying to understand things better, gathering info for future reference.
Cid
Posted by: CidinDupont on February 3, 2005 05:26 PMI’ve suspected (expected) that she’s been somewhat sexually active; kissing and fondling and such, but hoped she wasn’t doing more than that. I fear this guy will crush her emotionally by breaking up with her again after he gets what he wants.
She’s been doing well in school and I don’t want to see that progress destroyed by an emotional breakdown of some sort. So I was concerned, but wanted to trust her judgment. Business travel caused both my wife and I to be out of town one night during the week. We trusted her to “be safe” and make the right choices.
Here’s where it gets bad. Suspecting something was wrong, I looked in her computer files. Not quite a diary, but with what I found I felt as bad as if it was. I’m torn with what I feel is an invasion of her privacy, and my desire to keep her out of harm’s way.
I’m probably being overprotective, but in this state (NY), it is a Misdemeanor crime for a 17-yr old boy to have sex with a 16-year old girl. It’s probably a $10 fine, but it’s still a crime. I also contend that I wouldn’t have done this horrible act if I didn’t have such bad feelings about the boy.
Anyway, because my daughter copy-pasted her IM conversations into word documents, I discovered that she had invited the boy over to our home and they attempted to have sex. He apologized for trying to make her have sex when she didn’t want to, (that would be rape if he was a year older – regardless of if she wanted to or not), and also apologized for “freaking out about the blood”.
What bothers me most about this is that she violated our trust and did exactly what we hoped she wouldn’t. I think I’d be less bothered if they did these things in his car, rather than under the roof I’m providing for her, IM’ing on the computer I bought for her, over the high-speed internet connection I provide for her.
I confronted her, telling her I knew she had him over on the night she was alone. She denied it and stomped off. We will probably talk about it some more, but she’s smart enough to realize that the only way I could know is from invading her privacy.
I feel terrible. I expect I’ve wrecked the relationship I had with my daughter, and haven’t done anything to encourage her to avoid the mistakes she’s making.
Am I a bad parent?
Posted by: W on June 9, 2005 08:42 AM