Parental Eavesdropping Against the Law

[maleficent]

Eavesdropping against law even for parent, court says
By Christine Clarridge
Seattle Times staff reporter

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."

The mother, Carmen Dixon, was incredulous.

"I just believe you have the right to know what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with," said Dixon, 47, of Friday Harbor. "We were having a hard time with her as a teenager. She was sort of out of control."

Monitoring her daughter's phone calls was "the way I could keep track of what she was up to," Dixon said.

San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney Randall Gaylord said the court's position weakens the ability of parents to monitor their children's actions.

"I tell parents that they need to be involved in their children's lives, and I'm concerned that this will mean parents can't always do the right thing," Gaylord said. "I'm concerned that a 14-year-old's right to privacy now trumps the parent's right to be a parent."

Because Christensen has already served the nine-month jail term to which he was sentenced, Gaylord said his office has not decided whether to seek a new trial.

According to court documents, Christensen telephoned his girlfriend, Lacey Dixon, then 14, and talked about being a suspect in a purse snatching in October 2000.

To take the call, the girl went to her room and shut the door.

Her mother activated a speakerphone, listened to the conversation and took notes, according to court documents. Dixon said yesterday she overheard her daughter question Christensen about his involvement in the purse snatching. Though Christensen didn't admit to the crime, he told Dixon's daughter "they'll never find it" because he hid it "across a ditch in some stick bushes," Dixon said.

"I'm shocked and I'm disappointed," Dixon said of the court's ruling, "because my testimony is what convicted" Christensen.

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.

"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.

Tario said his client is now a crab fisherman in Alaska.

Carmen Dixon's daughter, now 18, graduated from high school and is attending a massage-therapy school in Everett, her mother said. Their relationship now "is great," Dixon said.

------------
OK, so basic gist of this story, mom eavesdrops on her 14 year old daughters conversation with the daughters 22 year old boyfriend, as a result, the boyfriend gets convicted of a crime. But now mom gets into trouble because her eavesdropping was considered illegal.

How much privacy are minors entitled to have.

[bal8664]

I don't think minors should have any legal right to privacy from their parents in their own home. Is there any reason they legally need it? I mean look at this case for example. Now a theif is not accountable because a mother worried about her daughter with good reason, she had a 22 year old boyfriend for god sakes, maybe he'll be convicted of something for that at least.

[Cadwiz]

I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that my daughters are afforded the level of privacy that they have earned. I trust them to tell me the truth. They know the penalty for lying is way worse than what the are lying to cover-up. Obviously, I don't just barge into their rooms, but phone calls are open to scrunity at any time.

[flamingdog]

A reasonable level of privacy is only right and proper. I had no privacy throughout my teens, and I had done nothing to merit it, my parents just considered my room open to them, despite my strenuous insistence that they at least knock. The close shaves I had...

But how many of us are bitching about kids' behaviour saying the parents need to take them in hand? It happens all the time on this board alone. Until you're 18, your mum and dad have sole responsibility for what you do, fact. So they should, and in fact need to know what you are up to. If you are a trustworthy kid, maybe they can take their hands off the wheel a little. But they still deserve to know what's going on.

[Psycho Dad]

Originally Posted by bal8664

she had a 22 year old boyfriend for god sakes,

I think the boyfriend would have been 18 at the time the call was monitored. But you still have a good point. I can't see how this should have overturned his conviction. It isn't as if the police gathered the information without proper warrants and whatnot.

I've never listened in on my childrens calls or snooped about their rooms. But then again I've had no reason to think I needed to. Had I a 14 year old daughter seeing an 18 year old boy I may feel different. I suspect this mother had good cause to be suspicious.

[flstf]

I don't think there should be a law against parents snooping on their kids. However I also think that if you have to sneak around and listen to your teenager's phone conversations, etc.. that you have probably already lost them. They are young adults and need some privacy. In the long run snooping may do more harm than good. If I found out that my parents had done that to me I would resent it to this day.

[TexanAvenger]

Granted, I'm not really far removed from the "joys" of parental snooping, but c'mon... listening in on a phone conversation? I mean, I see where posters like Cadwiz and flamingdog are coming from, and I would agree with them for a lot of things, but kids do deserve privacy and freedom too. Do they deserve the same amount as an adult? No. In general anyway. How can we expect our kids to utilize their rights when they grow up if they've been told they have none throughout their formative years? And how can we teach our kids about all these freedoms and rights just to tell them immediately after that they don't have them? That's like waving a steak in front of a hungry dog and pulling it away every time the dog tries to take a bite. You shouldn't be so damn surprised to get bitten every once in a while.

[sailor]

Wow... Not sure where I stand on this one. On the one hand, I do believe that she has a right to privacy--but on the other hand, she is a child, in her parents house, and had a history of being "unruly."

I guess I think the mother crossed the line with blatantly listening in on the phone conversations (basically tapping the line, not just listening through a door) and taking notes--I can definintely see where that would be an invasion of privacy.

[lurkette]

This isn't about a child's absolute right to privacy, it's about the admissability of evidence. I seriously doubt a child could sue his or her parents for listening in on a conversation; but for a third party who's convicted of a crime based on overheard evidence, this amounts to a technicality about how evidence is obtained. It's a shame that they've framed it in terms of a minor's right to privacy instead of evidentiary standards.

[bigoldalphamale]

shiiiit. me and several of my friends took this in the exact opposite direction...spying on our own parents. finding out when they were planning on going out of town. talking to relatives about what they got us for christmas. shit. we had some pretty elaborate methods of surveillance. lol...we also knew when our parents were attempting to monitor us...and we dropped serious dis-information to confuse and confound. what great days those were living under my folks roof. ha.

[MSD]

If you cannot tell what your kids are doing in any way other than listening inon their private conversations, you need to rethink your parenting methods and figure out what the hall you're doing wrong. Parents should respect their kids' right to privacy unless there's an overwhelming reason to intervene (some parents should have recognized the use of a pipe bomb as a paperweight as being a problem and said somethign before a couple of kids shot up their school.)

Of course, this is coming from someone whose mother went on a 45-minute tirade when she found that I had a zippo lighter, even though she know I didn't smoke, just as an example of how overbearing she can be.

[f6twister]

I guess in the same circumstances, I would do the same as this lady did. She had reason to be suspicious and she was right. I agree with lurkette, this article was really about the lady's testimony in a criminal complaint. I can see where she thought that she was doing the right thing. She had information related to a crime and testified to what she had heard.

This did make me think about the laws here so I checked them out. The state laws here are no different than in Washington so I could not legally listen to my childs conversation either. Will I if I think something is wrong, hell yeah! If that is what it takes to make sure my kids isn't doing something they shouldn't, I'm willing to take the chance. Kids have freedom and privacy, if they earn it. As a parent, I can forbid my child from going anywhere I don't want them to, make them stay in school and revoke their driving privledges, but I can't listen to them talk. Laws are very strange.

[pig]

Is this about the daughter's expectation of privacy, or the boyfriend's? In my opinion, the daughter shouldn't have a legal case...i think your "legal" right to privacy in your parents' house should be trumped by the fact that you're living in their house, and they are legally and financially responsible for a lot of your actions. I can sort of see where the boyfriend might have some expectation, but really....if I called my 14 year old middle school girlfriend, and got into that kind of conversation - if her parents' overheard, well shit. What did you really expect? You're calling their house to speak to their underage daughter. That's why you don't talk about illegal stuff on the phone. I didn't like it when my parents went through my stuff, but I didn't think they were conducting legal activity. Does this mean that parents can't go through their kids closets either?

[legolas]

i think parents shouldn't be able to just invade in privacy like that. to me that's taking a cheap and easy way out of trying to parent. i think good parents wouldn't have had her dating the man to begin with, or taught her long ago what not to do.

[scout]

What I find interesting is the older you get the less privacy you feel children/teenagers need. This is compounded when one becomes the proud parent of a teenager and financially responsible for the mistakes their teenager makes.

[Sargeman]

So I'm supposed to raise my kids, feed my kids, clothes my kids, and take responsibility for them, but in Wahsington it's illegal for me to eavesdrop?

I bet if my child gets in trouble I'll be the one to get hammered too.

[ShaniFaye]

I think somebody needs to find out why the mother was A. letting her 14 year old daughter date and B. Why in the world is she letter her see an 18 year old?

IMO Unless the kid is paying her own phone bill then the parents have every right to know whats being said.

[denim]

I'm trying to figure out why this girl had a phone in her room.

[scout]

Originally Posted by Sargeman

I bet if my child gets in trouble I'll be the one to get hammered too.

That's exactly right. And everyone in the country will be wondering why you didn't know what your child was up to!! Suddenly it's all your fault because you wasn't eavesdropping!!

[pig]

Originally Posted by scout

What I find interesting is the older you get the less privacy you feel children/teenagers need. This is compounded when one becomes the proud parent of a teenager and financially responsible for the mistakes their teenager makes.

yeah, funny isn't it? i never thought i'd actually grow old i think even when i was a kid, however, what i thought my parents should ethically do, and what they were legally bound to do are different things. i don't know that i would have ever tried to take them to court for eavesdropping on me or going through my stuff, because well...it's their house. i might have been tremendously angry at them, and i might have felt they overstepped their bounds - I don't recall ever yelling at them about the 4th amendment or anything.

as i said, the only argument i can see is that the pedophile boyfriend had some expectation of privacy when he called into the home...but in my opinion if you're an 18 year old guy chasing down a 14 yr. old girl, you've pretty much got to expect that her parents might be checking in on things.

[Coppertop]

This is just plain stupid. It's the mother's house, if the daughter doesn't respect that, too fucking bad. The daughter can let her own children have private conversations with adults on her phone in her house all she wants when she is in her mother's situation.

[TexanAvenger]

Originally Posted by greedy75

Kids have freedom and privacy, if they earn it.

This line of reasoning is what bothers me. One does not "earn" the rights that this country's founded on, they are given them by way of their being citizens.

Amendment IV of the Bill of rights clearly states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yes, I understand that this girl was a minor, who was up to something she shouldn't've been, but how does that give anybody, even her mother, the right to breach a major part of our consitutional rights? And under the idea that one earns the right to privacy, how does one judge when it has been earned? Why aren't children given these rights but adults are? Does the fact that you survived 18 years with few rights entitle you to automatically recieve those rights? If the right is earned, why are there not more adults who don't have the right to privacy? The government puts out the Patriot Act and people are up in arms about their right to privacy, but then turn around and rationalize keeping those rights from their kids.

If the mother felt the need to check in with her 14 year old daughter about her 18 year old boyfriend, she should spoken to her about it. I'm not crazy enough to say that an adult should be dating somebody in middle or high school. In fact, I've told a few friends off for even considering it. But by basically tapping the line, whether or not she owns it, the mother violated any trust that she was entitled to as the girl's mother. Good intentions do NOT necessarily indicate good actions.

[denim]

Originally Posted by TexanAvenger

This line of reasoning is what bothers me. One does not "earn" the rights that this country's founded on, they are given them by way of their being citizens.

You're confused. The Constitution binds the government, not the citizens, and certainly not parents.

[thingstodo]

My kids are grown. However, the rule always was if it's my house and I pay the bills, I know what is going on. You want privacy and total freedom, buy your own roof. That's the only way you'll appreciate it. My house, my rules.

Of course, I did try to respect my kids as individuals and they did earn rights. However, it did always come back to the fact that under my roof my rules apply.

[Lebell]

What I fail to understand is how a school principal can legally search a locker or school bag without a warrant, but this mother can't listen to her minor daughter's conversations on the phone the mother pays for in the house the mother makes payments on.

[martinguerre]

just a guess...but all she had to do is tell her daughter that she always monitored her calls.

if there's no expectation of privacy, there can't be a breach of privacy. the problem isn't what the mother did, it's how she did it.

[rat]

i don't know where i stand on this issue. i grew up with a relatively reasonable level of privacy while i still lived under my father's house. i could close the door to my room, but not lock it. he trusted me not to be doing idiotic, dangerous, or illegal things in his home...because I'd earned his trust by being responsible and demonstrating that I respected his home enough not to do things he'd be ashamed or angry at.

i think there's a fine line on the issue, and it's different in every case. i'm definitely of the mind that if a parent thinks eavesdropping on their child's privacy is necessary, they've lost the battle of trust and respect long before that, and that issue needs to be addressed as a higher priority. of course, growing up with reasonable parents may have made me quite biased on the issue.

also, i think a few people have touched upon the bigger issue, while many of you have decided to ignore it. the privacy of the young man was also violated, and he did have a reasonable expectation of privacy when calling his girlfriend. the age difference is such that (depending on the birthday of the girl), he could have been a high school senior, and she a high school freshman. hell, i was 14 when i entered high school. doubt i was the only one. and for those of you that would like to posit that he didn't have the right to priacy because it was the parent's phone, in their home, then I posit that the same standard would be applied to guests entering the home, and thus it should be acceptable to search the wallet/purse/suitcase of any guest you have in your home.

[Blackthorn]

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

I think the boyfriend would have been 18 at the time the call was monitored. But you still have a good point. I can't see how this should have overturned his conviction. It isn't as if the police gathered the information without proper warrants and whatnot.

I've never listened in on my childrens calls or snooped about their rooms. But then again I've had no reason to think I needed to. Had I a 14 year old daughter seeing an 18 year old boy I may feel different. I suspect this mother had good cause to be suspicious.

This mother indeed had good cause to be suspicious. The ridiculous idea that her 14 y/o daughter ... her DAUGHTER ... had an 18 y/o boyfriend is unreal. There is a big difference in those four years and personally I would not have allowed this nonsense to continue. The mother mentions in the story that this girl was "out of control". The mother has the right to be a parent and that means knowing exactly what's going on in your child's life. At the age of 14 I think you have the right to be a kid in a parent's home where the parent still knows what's best for you in your life. You do not have the right to complete privacy and if you are a 14 y/o GIRL... a GIRL not yet a woman ... you will get more oversight from me as your father than you would probably ever care for end of story. And any 18 y/o punk ass purse snatcher better be thinking about moving along....

[MSD]

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

I think somebody needs to find out why the mother was A. letting her 14 year old daughter date...

I dont' really see the problem with it. The age difference is the problem, but a 14-year-old dating is not uncommon, and I don't see any problem with it.

[skinnymofo]

when i was 15 my parents listened to a phone call i had
and "caught" me smoking weed even though i they didnt find it, and i didnt even do it that night.

now i know i was doing something wrong in the eyes of the law, but unless youve had someone listen in on your phone call a person cant understand how pissed off it makes a person to be eaves dropped on.

As a result 4 years later, i still dont talk on the phone and keep secretive when on my cell phone.
should the guy have got off from what the mother heard? no i dont think so and if nothing else theres a rape charge in there. But he did serve the time already even if he was free.

im mixed on this issue, but i absolutely cannot stand someone listening in on what i have to say. Maybe im just too secretive of a person? oh well


quick edit- most all the girls i knew in high school were dating men years older than them
hell, one girl her mom introduced them, she was i think 16 at the time and he was just fresh off the xfl and then started living with them for a while.
its not that uncommon anymore it seems to have someoen way older

[denim]

Originally Posted by skinnymofo

but unless youve had someone listen in on your phone call a person cant understand how pissed off it makes a person to be eaves dropped on.

I'm looking for how "pissed" is relevant to the discussion. My parents, being parents, did lots of things which pissed me off as a child. Key point: "child". They're not your friends, they're your parents. Their goal is supposed to be your welfare, at a time when you're clueless.

[K-Wise]

At the risk of sounding ridiculously immature, upon reading I found the prosecuting Attourney's last name being "Gaylord" to be equally as entertaining as the issue of the article in general. Asside from that of course I don't know exactly where I stand on this issue. I do feel the parent should have the right to know what her kid is doing...maybe not eavesdropping on telephone conversations but something. And do I think that kind of eavesdropping is wrong? Yeah maybe...considering there is no trust there but also do I think it should be agains the law?? Probably not...I'm really torn on this one.

Asta!!

[TexanAvenger]

Originally Posted by denim

You're confused. The Constitution binds the government, not the citizens, and certainly not parents.

You're right, it was written to bind the government. This was written as a way to "check" the govenment, keep it from getting as powerful as the government they were breaking away from. But I'm not confused. Isn't the idea behind it that these rights are inherent? I understand what you're saying and also understand that it is the established way of looking at/dealing with these situations. And, not being a parent myself, I'm sure my words aren't carrying a lot of validity.

But c'mon, kids're people too. Granted, they tend to be little people, who have a greater attraction to simple sugars, but they're still people. And, I think, generally, from about 13 on, they're kids who should be beginning to be treated as adults. Much too often, though it wasn't really the case in my house, teenagers tend to be given more responsibilities in preparation for adulthood, but parents are pretty stingy on handing out freedoms in return.

[denim]

Originally Posted by TexanAvenger

But c'mon, kids're people too.

In a limited definition of "people", sure. They NOT little adults, though.

Granted, they tend to be little people, who have a greater attraction to simple sugars, but they're still people. And, I think, generally, from about 13 on, they're kids who should be beginning to be treated as adults. Much too often, though it wasn't really the case in my house, teenagers tend to be given more responsibilities in preparation for adulthood, but parents are pretty stingy on handing out freedoms in return.

They're adults when they take on adult responsabilities. Until then, they are their parents' responsability. I hope this case is overturned on appeal.

[Jonsgirl]

Does any one else see a problem with the mother taking notes? I mean, listening is one thing and, in certain circumstances, warrented, but how lousy is it that you're taking notes on it. It's as if she was doing a research paper on her child, not, you know, parenting.

And the mother's quote was that her child was "unruly." WTF is that? 'Unruly', like she didn't clean her room? Or 'unruly' like she was a crack whore?
People are different, and they define things differently. Some mothers (and fathers, too. I'm using mother because of the instant at hand) are more protective of thier children than others. Some mothers are far more overbearing than they need to be, seeing crime and sex and thousands of evils in thier children for no other reason than they are pessimistic. Should the child be punished because of imagined crimes? NO. Should they have to work first, and gain rights secondly? NO. You punish after the crime. Children are not a sub-speices, they are not indentured servants working to gain thier freedom. Why would you treat them as such? The statement "because you know best" does not work. People need learning expeirences in order to...guess what...learn. I'm not saying you let your child walk off a cliff or into the arms of a murderer, but you can't invade their rights- that's how you get religious fanatics and backwoods militia.

And for all of you thinking "but she was dating an 18 yr old boy, for chrissakes," remember that that's not a crime on her part, but on the boyfriend's. The fact that she's dating doesn't make her evil. Why didn't the mother tell the boyfriend to leave her daughter alone, instead of invading her daughter's privacy?

[greytone]

Besides what has been said already, there is another important point the judge just completely screwed up. Listening on an extension is not the same as wiretapping. After all, it would have been OK if she just stood around the corner because that is not electronic evesdropping.

[thingstodo]

Originally Posted by rat

i don't know where i stand on this issue. i grew up with a relatively reasonable level of privacy while i still lived under my father's house. i could close the door to my room, but not lock it. he trusted me not to be doing idiotic, dangerous, or illegal things in his home...because I'd earned his trust by being responsible and demonstrating that I respected his home enough not to do things he'd be ashamed or angry at.

You sum up my point quite well. Kids have to earn respect. And then they have to keep what they have earned. It's what life is all about.

[velcr0]

Personally, I feel its a "while under my roof, you live by my rules" idea. If a parent feels it is neccesary to eavesdrop on their child there must be a reason for it. Apparently in this case the parent was right. Besides, if the court is gonna go that route, fine...I'll chuck that phone right out the window.