3 ms·
Hmm, I think California lawmakers flunked constitutional law.. As I understand it that is no US Constitutional distinction between rights of parents or rights
by shareme 15y ago
Hmm, I think California lawmakers flunked constitutional law..
As I understand it that is no US Constitutional distinction between rights of parents or rights of children..ie when you are born in the US you have full rights under the constitution despite not being able to enter contracts a non-minor. That would mean that a parent getting private access to a private other FB member account of a child would fall under the right be to be secure form search and seizure ..among other constitutional issues
- anamax 15y ago> As I understand it that is no US Constitutional distinction between rights of parents or rights of children..ie when you are born in the US you have full rights under the constitution despite not being able to enter contracts a non-minor. You need to re-read the US Constititution. It has several prohibitions based on age. And the Supremes have been more than happy to accept several others. > That would mean that a parent getting private access to a private other FB member account of a child would fall under the right be to be secure form search and seizure ..among other constitutional issues In almost all circumstances, parents can consent to have their children's physical property searched. (This is very settled law.) Given that, what makes you that "virtual property" would be treated any differently? BTW - Even if you're an adult, other people can consent to have your property searched in many circumstances. To my reading, 4th amendment law doesn't much follow the 4th amendment, but the Supremes have gone a different direction for decades.