City Of Ontario v. Quon

130 S.Ct. 2619 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was employed by D's police department. D acquired 20 alphanumeric pagers capable of sending and receiving text messages. Each pager was allotted a limited number of characters sent or received each month. Usage in excess of that amount would result in an additional fee. D issued pagers to P and other SWAT Team members in order to help the SWAT Team mobilize and respond to emergency situations. D had a “Computer Usage, Internet and E-Mail Policy” that P signed, which stated that there was no expectation of privacy in using D computers. The Computer Policy did not apply, on its face, to text messaging through third party vendors. D made clear to employees, including P, that D would treat text messages the same way as it treated e-mails. P exceeded his monthly text message character allotment. P wrote a check to D for the overage. The same arrangement to other employees who incurred overage fees. Because so many had incurred overages, D decided to determine if the current limit was too low. Arch Wireless provided the desired transcripts. It was discovered that many of the messages sent and received on P's pager were not work related, and some were sexually explicit. The matter was referred to OPD's internal affairs division for an investigation into whether P was violating OPD rules by pursuing personal matters while on duty. The report noted that P sent or received 456 messages during work hours in the month of August 2002, of which no more than 57 were work-related; he sent as many as 80 messages during a single day at work; and on an average workday, P sent or received 28 messages, of which only 3 were related to police business. The report concluded that P had violated OPD rules. P was allegedly disciplined. Raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 P filed suit against Ds. Ps claimed Ds violated Fourth Amendment rights and the SCA by obtaining and reviewing the transcript of P's pager messages and that Arch Wireless had violated the SCA by turning over the transcript to D. The court granted Arch Wireless' motion for summary judgment on the SCA claim but denied Ds' motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims. The District Court determined that P had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of his text messages. The court then determined that if the audit's purpose “was to determine the efficacy of the existing character limits to ensure that officers were not paying hidden work-related costs, . . . no constitutional violation occurred.” The jury concluded that the audit was ordered to determine the efficacy of the character limits. The Court held that Ds did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It entered judgment in their favor. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. The court concluded it was not reasonable because there were other less intrusive ways to conduct the survey. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.