Ah. Bad wording on my part. I didn’t mean to imply that the fact that it was a felony would make it fail on constitutional grounds. My post was rather amazement that it was a felony, then speculation that a law that criminalized adultery would fail on constitutional grounds.
Two separate things.
The OP is talking about a situation where, at the time, both parties were in a legal marriage, not 2 people just shacking up together. I think it’s going to come down a ruling about rights, privileges, implied consent, and community property that all exist in a legal marriage, even if those rights, privileges, implied consents, and community properties aren’t mentioned in any legal statutes. And I’m willing to bet the courts will side with common sense on this one and rule they do exist even if they aren’t mentioned in any law.
If they didn’t, a guy could have his wife arrested for theft when he came home from work and found that she had drank his beer. Beer he had hidden in a refrigerator they both share. The show COPS would be ridiculously absurd, with women screaming their husbands had used toilet paper that she bought and did not give him permission to use even though it was stored in a closet they both have access to.
I have a strong box that locks automatically when closed. I have the combo etched into the metal on top of it, because the boxes purpose is not anti-theft, but to protect the papers inside from fire. I don’t recall ever giving my wife permission to go into that box. But it’s kept in a closet we both share, therefore I find it unreasonable to assume she couldn’t legally go into that box.
Had the case in the OP been a laptop she was given by her employer, one he did not have regular access to, there would be a case.
Your moral outrage and social cluelessness aren’t really relevant either, then. You’re just making fun of someone for believing that something that is so socially established must also be legally established. Instead, why don’t you research the subject and present evidence to back your views? If you want to make a claim that is contrary to accepted beliefs, then you have to provide evidence.
Hey I didn’t forget.
The trial got pushed forward to April 11. Hamburgers. I’ll probably forget this time.
Chillax. Everybody misses a post now and then.
Was there, or does either party claim there was, an explicit agreement between the partners on what constituted acceptable computer use? If they had talked it over and agreed “OK, my computer account is mine and yours is yours, and we won’t go into the other’s account”, then I can see that the wife has a case. Absent that, though, I’m not so sure.