Supreme Court: Text Messages Not Immune From Company Search
Tom Diemer
Correspondent
Posted:
06/18/10
Cautiously, the Supreme Court waded into the field of cellphone and electronic device privacy Thursday, ruling that a California police chief's search of an officer's questionable text messages was allowable because it served a "legitimate work-related purpose."
The unanimous decision in the case, City of Ontario v. Quon, was made narrowly as the high court steered clear of a sweeping opinion on privacy parameters for use of cellphones and other electronic communications equipment . The case involved a SWAT team officer who exceeded the monthly limit on text messaging from his department-issued pager, sending many missives that were personal, including in some sexually explicit remarks to his wife and a mistress, the Washington Post said.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "prudence counsels caution" before using the facts in the California case to "define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communications devices." Ohio State University law professor Joshua Dressler told the Post the court was wise to punt and not "make broad pronouncements regarding our rights in this new world in which we live."
The officer, Sgt. Jeff Quon, argued that the department's snoopiness violated his Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. But the court said Quon should not have assumed that all of the text messages he sent while on duty as a policeman were "in all circumstances immune from scrutiny."
The unanimous decision in the case, City of Ontario v. Quon, was made narrowly as the high court steered clear of a sweeping opinion on privacy parameters for use of cellphones and other electronic communications equipment . The case involved a SWAT team officer who exceeded the monthly limit on text messaging from his department-issued pager, sending many missives that were personal, including in some sexually explicit remarks to his wife and a mistress, the Washington Post said.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "prudence counsels caution" before using the facts in the California case to "define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communications devices." Ohio State University law professor Joshua Dressler told the Post the court was wise to punt and not "make broad pronouncements regarding our rights in this new world in which we live."
The officer, Sgt. Jeff Quon, argued that the department's snoopiness violated his Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. But the court said Quon should not have assumed that all of the text messages he sent while on duty as a policeman were "in all circumstances immune from scrutiny."