Weirdly enough, Most jurisdiction's wiretap laws make listening in on one's own children's phone conversations illegal, period. In theory, if the taping could very well give the creep a viable civil cause of action. He could sue them, and legally could collect...Doctor X wrote:
O'Reilly and the Rest are pissing all over a decision the WA State SC which overturned a conviction based on the mother listening in to a phone conversation of her daughter with a creep. The Rigtheous Religious are screeming that "it is illegal for parents to monitor their children?!!!"
Well, the lawyer for the scum explain--many times--that O'Reilly did not have his facts correct--Heavens to Betsy! The issue was the POLICE ASKED the mother to listen into the conversation because they could not obtain the warrents.
Believe O'Reilly, and it becomes admissible for police to use proxies to conduct illegal searches, wire-taps, et cetera.
Good luck with a jury in that case though, not to mention that he would be basically putting himself in prison.
Word to the wise: Absent the specific advice from a really smart lawyer who actually has checked and tells you that it is OK, never ever ever listen into a phone conversation without permission and sure as hell never tape anything. These statutes are a bit broad...
Here's some background:
At some point or another, the divorce lawyer has had the experience of having a client walk into the office and being informed that the client has absolute proof of their spouse’s infidelity. When queried as to the manner in which they obtained the proof, we have often been advised that the proof was obtained through the unauthorized recording of their spouse’s telephone conversation with a third party or information obtained from their home computer.
Being the astute lawyers that we are, we then advise our clients that they may have violated State or Federal Wiretap Statutes thereby exposing themselves to criminal penalties, but also severe civil penalties. For example, New Jersey’s Wiretapping Statute, provides as follows:
“Except as otherwise specifically provided in this act, any person who:
a. Purposely intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; or
b. Purposely discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the Interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
c. Purposely uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a crime of the third degree. Subsection b. and c. of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information”
The Federal Wiretap Statute has similar language but important differences, which will be discussed further in this article.
http://www.aaml.org/Articles/2001-03/Gr ... bersex.htm
What we do NOT see is INNOCENT guys getting off. It is not news.
A lot of what happens is guilty people being convicted of additional crimes or given unjust sentences, and that is really not news.
Like a case where back in the '70s some stupid kid decided to break into a house. He took a buddy along, who to the kid's chagrin was both boarderline retarded and, as it turned out, on acid at the time.
While the kid was looking through the silverware, the semi-retard on acid stumbled upon an elderly woman in an upstairs bedroom, and, acting rationally, beat her to death. They left and they get arrested the next day.
Ever hear of the felony murder rule? The state didn't even contest that the kid had no clue that a murder had even occurred. Didn't matter. Death during a felony = murder in the first degree. Plus the elderly woman was somebody's grandma, like a high ranking state official. Life with no chance of parole.
That is a bit harsh in my opinion, but that and a quarter will get you a game of Galaga...
Eventually his lawyer found a glaring trial error that deprived him of his rights at trial (nothing like 30 year old documents for asthma, at least I'll bet that is what that lawyer thought...) and managed to get his sentence reduced to, um, life with parole, which is as good as he could do seeing he was, by law, pretty beyond doubt guilty of murder despite never once even thinking he wanted to hurt anyone. As far as I know the parole board hasn't let him go. I think he turns 50 this month, his 32nd year behind bars...
Of course if it would have went down a few years earlier, he'd have got the chair...