Parents Can't Parent Anymore

[Merlin1047]

Merlin, what should she have done? she was privy to information about a crime being committed? One which also involved her daughter to some degree If she didn't report it wouldn't that make her an accessory after the fact?

She certainly should have reported what she overheard. But the police and lawyers involved should have built their case on admissible evidence.

 

[Hobbit]

She certainly should have reported what she overheard. But the police and lawyers involved should have built their case on admissible evidence.

The point is that it *should* have been admissable.

 

[Merlin1047]

The point is that it *should* have been admissable.

I disagree. If the courts admit this kind of evidence, then the next thing we'll have is neighbors eavedropping on each other on behalf of the police. This mother provided the police with a lead. The police should have developed the case from there.

Let's take a different example. Let's say that I, a private citizen, beat the stuffings out of a criminal to obtain a confession. I then relate that confession to the police. Do you believe that they should go to trial and rely on my testimony to convict this person? What if I sneak into someone's house and overhear them talking about their secret marijuana plantation. Should this be admissible as evidence in court?

 

[manu1959]

First, it's spanking. Now this. When is the government just gonna step back and let parents raise their kids, or are we gonna force a Hillary-esque "village raising" technique where parents barely get to do anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/parental.snooping.ap/index.html

A 17-year-old boy was convicted of the robbery, in part on testimony from his girlfriend's mother, who overhead him discussing the crime on the phone with her daughter.

he was guilty...he admitted it ...bullet to the back of the head :alco:

 

[Hobbit]

I disagree. If the courts admit this kind of evidence, then the next thing we'll have is neighbors eavedropping on each other on behalf of the police. This mother provided the police with a lead. The police should have developed the case from there.

Let's take a different example. Let's say that I, a private citizen, beat the stuffings out of a criminal to obtain a confession. I then relate that confession to the police. Do you believe that they should go to trial and rely on my testimony to convict this person? What if I sneak into someone's house and overhear them talking about their secret marijuana plantation. Should this be admissible as evidence in court?

If a neighbor hears something being said without trespassing, it's admissible, as it's the person's own fault for making their conversation audible to a third party. This woman was listening to a conversation taking place in her own home on her own phone and had every right to listen to it. It's a judicial consideration called 'expectation of privacy.' The daughter most certainly did not have the expectation of privacy from her legal guardians while in their house using their phone. The boyfriend certainly never had any guarantee that the owner of the *private* phone wasn't listening. Neither party had expectation of privacy, ergo, all evidence is admissible, unless you're a pinhead, liberal, activist judge who gives privacy rights to minors. The conversation wasn't even recorded. In all examples you give above, they involve trespassing and listening to conversations taking place within the privacy of someone else's home. This mother heard a conversation within her own home that pertained to her 16-year old daughter. There was no trespassing. There was no expectation of privacy for the girl. This whole thing is bullcrap.

 

[Merlin1047]

This woman was listening to a conversation taking place in her own home on her own phone and had every right to listen to it. It's a judicial consideration called 'expectation of privacy.'

To tell the truth, I hope that you're right in this particular case. I want to read more on this before I get too enthusiastic about taking a position one way or the other. If the court ruled that information obtained in this manner is not admissible as evidence in court, then I would agree with the ruling. But if the ruling is based solely on the "expectation of privacy" then I agree with your assessment that this is BS.

 

[Hobbit]

To tell the truth, I hope that you're right in this particular case. I want to read more on this before I get too enthusiastic about taking a position one way or the other. If the court ruled that information obtained in this manner is not admissible as evidence in court, then I would agree with the ruling. But if the ruling is based solely on the "expectation of privacy" then I agree with your assessment that this is BS.

The entire basis for dismissal of any phone conversation is expectation of privacy. If you can legally have an expectation of privacy, meaning the law fully entitles you to have privacy in that case, then the conversation is private, and only the person you're talking to can testify as to its contents unless the conversation was legally monitored (as in a wire tap). If there isn't an expectation of privacy, meaning there is a possibility of a legal third party listening, then all evidence is admissable. There's not another way to get testimony like this thrown out. The judges ruled that the daughter and the boyfriend had expectation of privacy, ergo, the mother listened illegally, ergo, her testimony is inadmissible. That's their ruling, and it's ludicrous.

 

[Bonnie]

The entire basis for dismissal of any phone conversation is expectation of privacy. If you can legally have an expectation of privacy, meaning the law fully entitles you to have privacy in that case, then the conversation is private, and only the person you're talking to can testify as to its contents unless the conversation was legally monitored (as in a wire tap). If there isn't an expectation of privacy, meaning there is a possibility of a legal third party listening, then all evidence is admissable. There's not another way to get testimony like this thrown out. The judges ruled that the daughter and the boyfriend had expectation of privacy, ergo, the mother listened illegally, ergo, her testimony is inadmissible. That's their ruling, and it's ludicrous.

Exactly Hobbit, and it was her private phone line thus her private property. If she had tapped his phone line that would be something entirely different. Also the lawyer defending the boy went a step further and said SHE should be charged with something, and should be sued in civil court. And the only reason she wasn't was the statute of limitations ran out in this case.