"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing,
if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Thursday, December 09, 2004

Here’s another victory for the forces of lunacy.

In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington’s privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter’s phone conversation.

Privacy advocates hailed the ruling, but the mother was unrepentant.

“It’s ridiculous! Kids have more rights than parents these days,” said mom Carmen Dixon, 47. “My daughter was out of control, and that was the only way I could get information and keep track of her. I did it all the time.”

The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon’s testimony against a friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen, who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due to the mother’s testimony. ...

Federal wiretap law has been interpreted to allow parents to record their child’s conversations. But Washington privacy law is stricter. Washington is one of 11 states that requires consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted or recorded.

If you live in Washington, and you happen to pick up the phone one night and hear your 14 year old daughter having a dirty conversation with her 42 year old boyfriend, that isn’t admissable as evidence in court.  If you happen to hear your son talking to one of his friends, and that friend is discussing the details of the Columbine-style shooting he has planned for the following morning, OOPS!  That’s not admissable.  If you get a crossed line and hear your neighbor arranging a purchase of ten kilos of pure heroin, that’s just too damn bad.

Ludicrous.  I understand the fundamental privacy issue involved, but this is just beyond the pale of stupidity.  This is Ninth Circuit Court-level asshattery.