In addition to obvious cases, such as taking pictures of classmates in various stages of undress (which can be construed as violating RCW Chapter 9.68A--Sexual Exploitation of Minors, a Class B felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and a registerable sex-offense), a more common example concerns those already on probation. Probation officers (PO's) routinely check MySpace accounts and similar social networking sites that you and your friends (co-defendants?) have generously shared with the public (including your PO).
One popular pose is "Probationers and Their Friends," friends who bear a striking resemblance to individuals with whom the court has ordered the probationer not to have contact with. The components of this classic image include everyone modeling intoxicating smiles, proudly displaying illicit substances in their hand(s), and various pieces of drug paraphernalia providing the background. Surprisingly, not long after the PO's view such a post and call in their colleagues to share their "idiot logs" ("you think that's stupid, I had a kid one time who posted a picture of ..."), they have the adudacity to follow up by filing a probation violation that seeks jail time as a reward for your photographic and computer prowess.
For the prodigies among you who think you are equipped to practice law as a teenager, I've got some more bad news for you. The rules of evidence are inapplicable to probation violation hearings (Evidence Rule (ER) 1101 of the Washington State Rules of Evidence, in case you forgot), which means that hearsay is admissible, the "Best Evidence" rule does not apply, and authentication is not required to admit most exhibits. Further, the standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but , rather, a mere "preponderance" of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). Finally, for those of you who spend most of your time contemplating appellate issues (that is, when you're not stealing underwear from Macy' s), you probably recall that the trier of fact (yes, the judge) makes determinations concerning credibility of witnesses. In other words, when you try to "explain" your story in the same, convincing manner that has been so successful in the past with your parents, your stellar reputation and that of your colleagues (more than likely the same people in the pictures) will be pitted against the questionable opinion of the PO, aka the Court Services Officer.
Many of you constitutional scholars may cry "foul" at the mere suggestion that your "right to privacy" has been invaded by a government agent. Upon careful reflection, however, this should not come as a shock. After all, this is not the first time your interpretation of the Constitution has been at odds with those in authority, including the United Staes Supreme Court and the Washington State Supreme Court. Children (that means you, if you're under the age of 18 in Washington--RCW 13.04.011(2)) have a lessened expectation of privacy in schools, and that means that less than "probable cause" is required to search you and your belongings. You also probably remember that not only do you not have a right to "a jury of your peers," you have no right to a jury trial at all!Smarter, adult career-criminals have learned a good technique to avoid getting caught, and that is to dispose of incriminating evidence, rather than collect it, store it, and disseminate it publicly through a computer. For those of you who continue to post evidence of your illegal activity on computers and expect is to be protected in the name of "privacy," I (or one of my colleagues) will see you soon. Of course, you don't have to follow my free advice (after all, it's only worth what you paid for it), and that's OK. Besides, I'm always happy to have another client.
No comments:
Post a Comment