City of Ontario v. Quon
560 U.S. 746 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government employer's search of an employee's text messages on an employer-issued device is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the search is justified at its inception for a legitimate, work-related purpose and the scope of the search is reasonably related to that purpose.
Facts:
- The City of Ontario Police Department (OPD) issued alphanumeric pagers to its SWAT team members, including Sergeant Jeff Quon, to help them mobilize for emergencies.
- The City had a 'Computer Usage, Internet and E-Mail Policy' stating it reserved the right to monitor all network activity and that users should have no expectation of privacy. Quon signed an acknowledgement of this policy.
- OPD Lieutenant Steven Duke informed officers, including Quon, that the computer policy also applied to the text messages on their pagers.
- The pager service plan had a monthly character limit; usage beyond the limit incurred an overage fee.
- Quon repeatedly exceeded his character limit. Duke informally allowed Quon to reimburse the City for the overages rather than having his messages audited to determine if they were work-related.
- After several months of collecting overage payments, OPD Chief Lloyd Scharf ordered an audit of the text message transcripts for Quon and another officer to determine if the character limit was too low for work purposes or if the overages were due to personal use.
- The audit revealed that many of Quon's messages sent during work hours were personal, and some were sexually explicit.
- As a result of the audit's findings, Quon was investigated by internal affairs and allegedly disciplined.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeff Quon and others sued the City of Ontario, the Ontario Police Department (OPD), and Chief Lloyd Scharf in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
- The District Court held a jury trial to determine the purpose of the audit.
- The jury found the audit's purpose was to determine the efficacy of the pager's character limits.
- Based on the jury's finding, the District Court held that the search was reasonable and entered judgment for the City and other petitioners.
- Respondents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that while the purpose of the search was legitimate, the search itself was unreasonable in scope because less intrusive methods were available.
- The City, OPD, and Chief Scharf (petitioners) were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government employer's review of an employee's text messages on an employer-issued pager, conducted for a legitimate, work-related, non-investigatory purpose, violate the employee's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No, the employer's review of the text messages did not violate the employee's Fourth Amendment rights because the search was reasonable. Assuming for the sake of argument that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the search satisfies the two-part reasonableness test established in O'Connor v. Ortega for workplace searches. First, the search was justified at its inception because it was motivated by a legitimate, non-investigatory, work-related purpose: to determine whether the character limits on the pagers were sufficient for work-related communications. Second, the scope of the search was reasonably related to this purpose; reviewing two months of transcripts was an efficient and expedient way to assess the character limit's efficacy and was not excessively intrusive. The court rejected the Ninth Circuit's reasoning that less intrusive means were available, reaffirming that a search need only be reasonable, not the least intrusive possible.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes, I agree that the search was reasonable and join the Court's opinion in full. I write separately to emphasize the wisdom of the Court declining to resolve the broader question of an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the competing O'Connor frameworks. As a law enforcement officer, Quon had a limited expectation of privacy in his official communications regardless of the framework applied. Therefore, under any of the approaches discussed in O'Connor, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No, the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. I agree with the judgment but write separately to criticize the Court's lengthy and unnecessary discussion of the 'operational realities' test from O'Connor and the challenges of applying the Fourth Amendment to new technology. Because the search was clearly reasonable, there was no need to address the threshold question of whether Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court's discussion is a confusing digression that inadvertently boosts the unworkable O'Connor plurality standard and offers a feeble excuse for not deciding a difficult but necessary question.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its cautious approach to Fourth Amendment rights in the context of emerging technology. The Court deliberately sidestepped the core question of what reasonable expectation of privacy an employee has in electronic communications on an employer-provided device, instead resolving the case on the narrower grounds of the search's reasonableness. This ruling reinforces the principle that government employers have considerable latitude to conduct searches for legitimate work-related purposes and explicitly rejects any requirement that they must use the 'least intrusive means' available. The decision provides guidance on the reasonableness of workplace searches but leaves the larger, more complex issue of privacy expectations in the digital age for future cases.
Unlock the full brief for City of Ontario v. Quon