For nearly 40 years, Washington’s privacy law sharply restricted electronic eavesdropping. In December, a court ruled that it was illegal for a mother to listen in on her daughter’s phone call.

Many legislators are uncomfortable with such an intrusion by the law into parent-child relationships. As they craft a correction, however, they need to be careful not to erode civil liberties that the privacy law was meant to protect.

The issue emerged as a result of a purse-snatching case in San Juan County in 2000. Police searched the house of a suspect’s girlfriend and found nothing, but they asked the girl’s mother to keep an eye out for possible evidence. She subsequently obliged by listening at the base station when her daughter was in her room talking to the boyfriend on a cordless phone. At trial she testified, from notes, about incriminating comments the boy made.

When defense lawyers challenged the admissibility of the testimony, the state Supreme Court concurred, saying the mother had violated the privacy law.

The ruling raises two issues: 1) Should it really be a crime for parents to monitor their minor children’s phone conversations? 2) Should unwitting participants to such a conversation – a boyfriend, for example – lose their protection under the state Privacy Act?

The current answers, under the December opinion by the Supreme Court, in order, are yes and no. State Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, wants to reverse the first situation. She’s introduced Senate Bill 5081, which would exempt parents from the law that now makes listening in on their children’s phone calls a misdemeanor – even though none has ever been prosecuted.

But Roach does not want to alter the second situation. It is not her intent to make the fruits of eavesdropping admissible in a criminal trial. By going as far as she does, but no further, Roach has the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, which believes that the state shouldn’t interfere in such family relationships. Like the senator from Auburn, the ACLU wants to preserve current requirements that all parties to an electronically intercepted conversation give their consent before it can be used as evidence.

The state prosecuting attorney’s association wants to lift that restriction. Its lobbyist has suggested language that would result in letting parents testify about overheard conversations, at least so long as they weren’t put up to it by law enforcement agencies. Legislation expected to be introduced in the House would be more in line with the prosecutors’ desires.

The Legislature didn’t have parent-child relationships in mind when it enacted the Privacy Act in 1967. It did mean to preserve individuals’ expectations of due process in courts of law. Roach, a conservative Republican, and the ACLU are unlikely allies, but in this case they have struck a proper balance.

Police agencies that have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing can ask a judge to permit a wiretap when necessary. Lawmakers who want to restore traditional family roles shouldn’t go beyond that and hand prosecutors a shortcut that would weaken our cultural commitment to civil liberties.