Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (27751)	1/27/2005 9:38:34 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 90947

The defendant involved is clearly headed for incarceration. The parents are even afraid of him. At least that's what I inferred. Imagine being afraid of your 15 year old? I realize that the procedural context of this case is different from the WA case, however I was struck by the fact that the CA court essentially took the position that a minor child has no right of privacy to the extent of assuming that parents might not toss her room, so to speak. In the WA case, the court sidestepped the issue of a minor being involved and just applied the wiretap statutes without really considering whether parental control over a minor defeated the defendant's reasonable expectations of privacy in the call. Perhaps it was easier for the CA court to reach its conclusion because of the nature of the proceedings; i.e. restraining orders, etc. It's different when evidence is used against a criminal defendant as in the WA case. In any event, I thought it was another side of the same coin and brought it up since our last conversation on the subject focused on parental control of minors and why shouldn't the mom be able to listen in.