|
|
Several legal experts in Connecticut say the laws in this state differ significantly from Washington's, and that, while the specific issue of parents listening in on phone conversations hasn't been raised, it's by no means clear whether a Connecticut court would rule the same way as the Washington court.
At first glance, Connecticut's law appears fairly simple: It's a felony to eavesdrop or to intercept private phone calls.
However, as Todd D. Fernow, professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law and director of criminal clinical programs there, notes, the issue isn't as straightforward as it seems.
The Washington ruling was based in part on that state's strict wiretapping laws, which require all-party consent for a phone conversation to be recorded. Washington is one of only 11 states to have such a requirement.
In other words, both parties in a telephone conversation have to be aware they're being recorded, or there's a privacy violation.
Connecticut requires the consent of only one party, Fernow says, meaning that, if a teenager allows a parent to eavesdrop on his phone conversations, the person he's talking to doesn't have to know about it.
But it gets trickier still, Fernow says. Because the parent is the legal guardian of the child, even if the child doesn't know the parent is eavesdropping, the parent's legal status could imply a "vicarious imputation of consent."
Connecticut courts have not yet established whether such an imputation of consent exists in terms of phone call interception, but under federal law parents are allowed to record their children's phone calls without explicit consent.
State courts do not have to follow federal law in this instance, though, and Fernow says a "pretty strong" counter-argument exists in the form of an implicit desire for privacy on the part of the child.
"When someone takes a cordless phone and goes into their bedroom and closes the door behind them, they are establishing a desire for privacy," he says.
Which essentially means that the impact of the Washington decision is unclear in Connecticut until a case comes to trial.
Encouraged to listen in
In the Washington case, Dixon was encouraged by local police to eavesdrop on her daughter's phone conversations after unidentified teenagers robbed a woman.
Police knew that Dixon's daughter, Lacey, was friends with one of the suspects, and encouraged Dixon to listen in for any clues in the case.
Dixon, who listened to the conversations via speakerphone while her daughter was talking in another room, indeed heard the teenage suspect, Oliver Christensen, brag about how he knew the location of the stolen purse. Dixon didn't record the conversation, but kept notes on it -- notes that were used in a criminal case against Christensen.
Christensen was convicted in part because of Carmen Dixon's testimony.
In its ruling, the Washington State Supreme Court tossed out the conviction and also determined that Carmen Dixon had broken the law by listening to her daughter's phone calls.
Ruling: Greeted with disbelief
So far, Connecticut's eavesdropping cases have generally involved law-enforcement cases, like the 1991 State v. McVeigh decision, in which the state Supreme Court ruled that evidence gathered by a man eavesdropping on a neighbor's phone calls at the behest of the Cromwell police was inadmissible in court.
But that case involved neighbors, where the "vicarious imputation of consent" can't be present.
The state's attorney's office theorizes it's unlikely a parent would be prosecuted for listening in to a child's phone conversation.
"Theoretically, someone could be prosecuted for listening in on a conversation when they don't have the permission. But realistically, it would probably depend on the facts of the case," says Judith Rossi, executive assistant state's attorney to Chief State's Attorney Christopher L. Morano.
Rossi says that in her experience, the Washington ruling was greeted with disbelief by many parents.
"I've heard women saying, "You can't tell me how to raise my kid. I'll break the law if I have to,'" she says.
That might not have been necessary even in Washington, noted civil liberties lawyer Martin Margulies says, if Carmen Dixon had chosen to appeal.
"She could have argued that her constitutional right as her child's guardian superseded the privacy requirement in this case," he says.
Margulies says the Washington court's decision tilts the law considerably in favor of privacy rights, even for dependent children, but says it's mostly a product of that state's wiretapping laws, and doubts a similar ruling would happen in Connecticut.
"Connecticut, the last time I checked, was a one-party consent state," he says. "The basis for the Washington opinion wouldn't apply here."
