Courts say NO to eavesdropping on kids

[hg321]

Leave those kids alone

 

[Viper GTS]

Reasonable expectation of privacy in your parents home?

Fvck that.

Viper GTS

 

[MattCo]

Another criminal gets off on a technicality.
:|
-MC

 

[ATLien247]

My house, my rules. Fvck the law!

 

[Zanix]

Kids have rights?

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Zanix
Kids have rights?

Probably more than we do.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Reasonable expectation of privacy in your parents home?

Fvck that.

Viper GTS

Mmm yeah, that's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Presumably, her mom is paying for the phone service. So, if I were this judge, the daughter would be SOL, but no, they have morons on the bench nowadays. 🙁

 

[BatmanNate]

I don't think the issue is the age of the people involved, the article states:

"Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants."

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Reasonable expectation of privacy in your parents home?

Fvck that.

Viper GTS

Mmm yeah, that's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Presumably, her mom is paying for the phone service. So, if I were this judge, the daughter would be SOL, but no, they have morons on the bench nowadays. 🙁

Protecting our rights is far more important than convicting a purse snatcher.

It's time you learned about case law, then you'll see the ramifications this could have had if this particular piece of evidence was permitted.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I don't think the issue is the age of the people involved, the article states:

"Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants."

It's not the girl's line, it's her mothers. I fail to see why consent from a MINOR is needed.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I don't think the issue is the age of the people involved, the article states:

"Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants."

which is why the judge ruled as he did

 

[Viper GTS]

Actually, now that I re-read it, I agree with the ruling.

Had the positions been reversed (ie the girlfriend was the one who got busted) then I would disagree.

Viper GTS

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
I don't think the issue is the age of the people involved, the article states:

"Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants."

It's not the girl's line, it's her mothers. I fail to see why consent from a MINOR is needed.

Minors aren't devoid of all rights.

 

[Babbles]

I suppose that is reasonable under the conditions that it did occur. I do think that parents should have the ability to monitor their own kids when in the house.

 

[JulesMaximus]

That doesn't mean that parents can't eavesdrop on their kids moron.

It means that eavesdropping by a parent can't be used as evidence in a court of law. :roll:

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
That doesn't mean that parents can't eavesdrop on kids moron.

It means that eavesdropping by a parent can't be used as evidence in a court of law. :roll:

Amen!

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Reasonable expectation of privacy in your parents home?

Fvck that.

Viper GTS

Mmm yeah, that's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Presumably, her mom is paying for the phone service. So, if I were this judge, the daughter would be SOL, but no, they have morons on the bench nowadays. 🙁

How are parents supposed to parent without control in the house?

Edit: nm, I don't think I understand what's going on.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
That doesn't mean that parents can't eavesdrop on their kids moron.

It means that eavesdropping by a parent can't be used as evidence in a court of law. :roll:

If that's the case, it's perfectly fine

If I didn't allow listening in on the conversation, that would just be very stupid

 

[JulesMaximus]

BTW-That story was VERY poorly written.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Zanix

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Reasonable expectation of privacy in your parents home?

Fvck that.

Viper GTS

Mmm yeah, that's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Presumably, her mom is paying for the phone service. So, if I were this judge, the daughter would be SOL, but no, they have morons on the bench nowadays. 🙁

How are parents supposed to parent without control in the house?

They're allowed to parent, but they can't try and convict someone with the evidence they gather from their parenting.

People always judge issues of this sort on a case by case basis, but that's not how the law works. If this case allowed it, it would set a very dangerous precedent.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
BTW-That story was VERY poorly written.

Yes, it was very poorly written.

 

[Tab]

They can't use that evidence? Thats stupid...

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: ATLien247
My house, my rules. Fvck the law!

[judge]
My house, my rules. Fvck what you *think* is right
[/judge]

Its not like they are prosecuting the mother on this its just any evidence collected in that manor isn't usable. You can listen into your child's phone conversations but don't expect the law to do anything about it.

 

[etalns]

Originally posted by: Tabb
They can't use that evidence? Thats stupid...

Did you not read the three times in the thread where the legal ramifications of it were mentioned?

Idiot.

 

[DeeKnow]

darn what a lawless country... in America the kid would have sued for and received a million buks cause his privacy was violated