The authorities certainly can use recorded conversations, however they need authorization for a wiretap. Federal law allows for a wiretap with single party consent. There may also be differences within different states and also for specific felonies in federal laws.

So, if a mother catches her child being propositioned by a child molester on the Internet, she can't legally do anything to get the cops on the guy until she either has a search warrant (hoping that the child molester will proposition the daughter again) or hope that the child molester consents to allowing her to use the words she saw against him?

So, if a mother catches her child being propositioned by a child molester on the Internet, she can't legally do anything to get the cops on the guy until she either has a search warrant (hoping that the child molester will proposition the daughter again) or hope that the child molester consents to allowing her to use the words she saw against him?

No she can report it to the cops. And the information on the computer may be permissable in court depending on the applicable state and federal statutes. Federal law which only requires single party consent has been interpreted to allow parents to "evesdrop". Some states have their own statutes which require all party consent. So you have to look at these states to see if parental exceptions are written into their statues(or have been previously interpreted as such). The fact is the Washington State law specifically states that the law applies to ALL individuals. So the judicial opinion in the Washington case stated:

"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.
and then states
"It is, of course, within the province of the legislature to shift this statutory balance should it decide the residents of this state require less privacy protection."

No activism here. All nine judges in agreement basically saying if you want parental exception in the state statute legislate it.

No activism here. All nine judges in agreement basically saying if you want parental exception in the state statute legislate it.

That may be true, but the fact remains that the judges completely ignored the fact that it is the parents, not the kid that owns the telephone. The judges assume that just because I (as a parent) allow my kids to use the phone, I give them full rights of ownership.

What the judges should have done was refuse to even bother with the arguement, since allowing it in court put them in this position and allowed idiocy to replace justice.

Too few judges are willing to tell attorneys and their clients that they cannot use their courtrooms as nurseries for infantile adults.

What the judges should have done was refuse to even bother with the arguement, since allowing it in court put them in this position and allowed idiocy to replace justice. Too few judges are willing to tell attorneys and their clients that they cannot use their courtrooms as nurseries for infantile adults.

Have an insightful on me ParaTed2k.  Boy howdy did you speak the truth there!

Independent1, some advice to make it easier for readers to follow you, select the part you want to quote, then hit the little 'Q' in the bottom left corner.  Makes it a whole lot easier to see what you are quoting and commenting on.  With that out of the way, you sound like you would make a good lawyer.  You are very right about the legislature.  That is why I said earlier that it will be interesting to see if the citizens of Washington State will get things changed.

I'm not arguing what part of the legal system dropped the ball, I am just saying it was dropped and this kind of idiocy hopefully will outrage and frustrate the people of Washington enough to do something about it.

"Independent1, some advice to make it easier for readers to follow you, select the part you want to quote, then hit the little 'Q' in the bottom left corner."

Thanks Jill...Unfortunately I don't have javascript enabled in my browser."

"I'm not arguing what part of the legal system dropped the ball, I am just saying it was dropped and this kind of idiocy hopefully will outrage and frustrate the people of Washington enough to do something about it."

Maybe it will, maybe it won't , guess it depends on how the people in the state feel about the issue....Allowing the testimony would mean not only allowing parental exception but also single party consent, clearly not the spirit of the law. Single party consent is basically no privacy because it means that anyone on the other end of a conversation would be able to tape your conversations without your consent and then use the information in court against you(or disclose it to the media). In any case it will be interesting to see what they do in Washington because if the voters want parental exception it looks like they will have to kiss some of their own rights to privacy goodbye.

Thanks Jill...Unfortunately I don't have javascript enabled in my browser."

Then use the [ quote][ /quote] without the spaces.  The site will translate it for you.  Or you can use [ B][ /B] again with out the spaces for bold, or even I for Italics.

And for the record, I agree that it was not the courts, but the legislature that dropped the ball.  I am one of the first that rails against activist courts, but in this case, they were just following the law.  And that is the sad part that the people of Washington allowed it to be written in the first place.

If parents can't monitor their children's conversations or activities on the phone or computer, then why can colleges (such as the one I am at right now) monitor the use of their computers?

probably because the computer is not in one of the 11 states that require "all party" consent.

That may be true, but the fact remains that the judges completely ignored the fact that it is the parents, not the kid that owns the telephone. The judges assume that just because I (as a parent) allow my kids to use the phone, I give them full rights of ownership. What the judges should have done was refuse to even bother with the arguement, since allowing it in court put them in this position and allowed idiocy to replace justice.

]

No, actually, what the judges did was follow the law as it was written. As I said earlier, the legislature had debated whether or not to include a provision excluding minors from the privacy act and choose not to--the legislative intent was clear and the judges upheld it. You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore. Don't like the law, lobby the legislature to change it...but don't suggest that a judge has the right to act above the law--that would be truly frightening.

No, actually, what the judges did was follow the law as it was written. As I said earlier, the legislature had debated whether or not to include a provision excluding minors from the privacy act and choose not to--the legislative intent was clear and the judges upheld it. You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore. Don't like the law, lobby the legislature to change it...but don't suggest that a judge has the right to act above the law--that would be truly frightening.

Damn!  twice in one day!  One of us is getting liberal or conservative!  But you nailed it again!  I agree 100%.  You dont like the law change it, dont subvert it in the courts!

For the record, just so I know I am still conservative, I think they should change the law, through the legislature!

Spooky!

You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore

Judges make that choice every day, they choose what evidence, what arguments and what "facts" can be presented by either side of the case.

That is their job. We pay them to think, if they can't do that, then maybe they should consider "The Academy of Persons Waiting For Your Call" as their next educational option.

Judges, school administrators, teachers, and others are using these "zero tolerance" style policies as an excuse to not think.

I will agree with you on the point of the legislature though, they showed a great inability to think when they passed such an idiotic law too. Their complete lack of judgement just gives lazy judges more excuses.

Once again, laziness begets more laziness.

Of course, there is our own laziness that let's such stupidity stand also.

Sorry but the coursts are right, they invaded his privacy. Dispite what he did, it does not give you the right to spy on him.

About columbine, you ever wonder why those kids did that to those other kids? Maybe if they didn't tease them it wouldn't have happened, its really quite simple to see and understand this, the way you people are going you will keep wading into ignorance and keep thinking its all their fault. Placing blame does not achieve anything, finding the cause or the initiation of such events is the way to understanding said happennings.

Lets take a quick look at columbine, a bunch of kids were probably being bullied a lot, this is wrong the people who are bullied are being oppressed and having their rights invaded, yet to have school rules, law and parents tell them they can't defend themselves. What ridiculous contradictory rules. I think the real reason they did this is to, say it is not right to infringe on other peoples rights, but through action rather than words. When its words most people refuse to listen, and when its action as I can see from the above posts some still refuse to listen or understand, and harp on about how the kids that were killed were innocent. How were they innocent if they bullied the kids that killed them, of course some of them may have been, but no one really knows, because there is no evidence. Right now some of you are probably thinking that I think murder is fine. Your dead wrong, but your also dead wrong in thinking that the bullies didn't deserve something of their own aggravation reflected back upon them.

As to people who say two wrongs don't make a right, I say one wrong doesn't make a right.

The above quote "two wrongs don't make a right" is contradictory in the fact that one wrong doesn't make a right.

Now I hope you actually learnt something, because i've written it all in black and white.

If you still don't understand then, clearly you are worthless and shouldn't make future comments on said happenings, until you gain a greater understanding of logic and how to apply it.

Feelings not matter in said situation only objectivity.

Bullying and Murder are both infringements of peoples rights.

Example:

A kid is being teased, the kid has done nothing to deserve this, lets say the kid gets teased for 1 year harshly by this other kid. How do you think that kid would feel? He would likely want to kill the other person especially if no one does anything about it. Remember he can't do anything except tell him to stop, he can't defend himself because of school rules, law, parents etc.

What gives the kid who is bullying the right? Nothing gives him the right.

Now picture this your a kid and lots of people bully you, and you've never done anything to hurt them intentionally. 5 years passes now you want to kill them because you can't accept the infringement of rights anymore.

Who's guilty here? The bulliers of course because they initiated the infringement of rights, and now the receiver wants to reflect it back on to them. Its not about revenge, its about rights being infringed upon.

Sorry but the coursts are right, they invaded his privacy. Dispite what he did, it does not give you the right to spy on him.

It is not "spying", the phone didn't belong to the kid, it belonged to the parents. If a kid gives his or her parents reason to suspect illegal activity, it is the parent's responsibility to find out what is going on.

About columbine, you ever wonder why those kids did that to those other kids? Maybe if they didn't tease them it wouldn't have happened, its really quite simple to see and understand this, the way you people are going you will keep wading into ignorance and keep thinking its all their fault. Placing blame does not achieve anything, finding the cause or the initiation of such events is the way to understanding said happennings.

Are you really saying that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should not be held responsible for their actions??? I am all for investigating any extenuating circumstances, and even taking lessons from the whole situation, hopefully to understand the "why" of what they did.

However, none of the "why" justified what they did. Making excuses for them is as ignorant as simply placing blame and ignoring anything that could be learned from the tragedy. They were murderers, plain and simple. The question isn't whether or not they were monsters, the question should be, what can we learn from the tragedy to see the warning signs that will help us keep other kids from becoming monsters.

Hoever, instead of learning lessons from it, all our culture seems to have done is used it as an excuse for more stupidity. As a knee jerk reaction to Columbine and the other shootings, school administrators everywhere have turned to "zero tolerance" idiocy. All "zero tolerance" means is, "We refuse to actually think through this situation so we are going to make blanket policies that make us feel better (actually doing something might make me feel bad).

Your dead wrong, but your also dead wrong in thinking that the bullies didn't deserve something of their own aggravation reflected back upon them.

If their only targets were those who had been bullying them, you might have a point. However, from the few recordings that have been released we never hear them being that specific about their targets. There is also the question about the pipebombs and 30 some odd propane tank bombs found throughout the school.

True, none of us will ever know everything about what happened at Columbine, but nothing about the evidence would point to the idea that they planned a surgical strike at specific targets. If they had have set off that propane, there would have been very few survivors.

Then use the [ quote][ /quote] without the spaces. The site will translate it for you.[ /quote]

If this worked TNX Dr.

Independent1 - don't use any spaces and the tags'll work properly. Dr Guy just had to use them so they would show up at all.

Sorry but the coursts are right, they invaded his privacy. Dispite what he did, it does not give you the right to spy on him

Since this is the only part of your comment that wasn't total trolling, I will address it.  Sorry but you are wrong my friend.  If you invade the privacy of my family life by talking to my underage child on my phone, I have the right to hear what you are saying.  That is the risk you take if you call my phone number.  I think most adults understand this.  Sure, the law makes it legal for the court to through it out.  That doesn't convince me that it is right.

Now to address your trolling rampage about Columbine, if you think that being bullied is an excuse to go blow people away, you need a whole lot of counseling.  I stand by my statement that parents need to be on top of what is going on with their children and don't need any more restrictions.  I firmly believe that the parents of those kids must have been totally tuned out or else they couldn't have done what they did.

 

Trolling rampage, you just an arrogant adult, property does not give you the right to spy on other people, I don't care what the law says about that, its an infringement of human rights.

if you think that being bullied is an excuse to go blow people away

I never said that read the reply again moron.

Parents should stop lying to their kids and start telling them the truth.