City of Ontario v. Quon
560 U.S. 746, 177 L. Ed. 2d 216, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4972 (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 it is motivated by a legitimate, work-related purpose and its scope is not excessively intrusive.
Facts:
- The City of Ontario Police Department (OPD) issued alphanumeric pagers to its employees, including SWAT team sergeant Jeff Quon, to facilitate emergency responses.
- The City had a written 'Computer Usage, Internet and E-Mail Policy' stating users should have no expectation of privacy, which Quon acknowledged in writing.
- OPD Lieutenant Steven Duke informed officers, including Quon, that this policy extended to text messages on the pagers and that they could be audited.
- The pagers had a monthly character limit, and Quon repeatedly exceeded it. Duke informally allowed Quon to reimburse the City for the overage fees to avoid an audit of his messages, which Quon did several times.
- After Quon continued to exceed the limit, Police Chief Lloyd Scharf ordered an audit of the messages to determine whether the character limit was too low for work-related communications.
- OPD obtained transcripts of Quon's text messages for two months from its wireless provider, Arch Wireless.
- A review of the transcripts revealed that the vast majority of Quon's messages sent during work hours were personal in nature, and some were sexually explicit.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeff Quon and others sued the City of Ontario and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging Fourth Amendment violations.
- The District Court held a jury trial solely on the issue of the Police Chief's purpose for ordering the audit.
- The jury found the purpose was the legitimate work-related goal of determining the efficacy of the pager's character limits.
- Based on the jury's verdict, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the City defendants, finding no constitutional violation.
- Quon appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit 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 means were available.
- The City of Ontario, OPD, and Chief Scharf (petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 violate the employee's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches when the review is for a legitimate, non-investigatory work-related purpose and is reasonable in scope?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A government employer's search of an employee's text messages on an employer-issued device does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is justified at its inception and is reasonable in scope. The Court assumed, without deciding, that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages. However, the search was reasonable under the standard established in O'Connor v. Ortega. It was justified at its inception because it was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose: to determine whether the character limits on the pagers were sufficient for OPD's needs. The scope of the search was also reasonable because it was an efficient way to achieve this purpose, was limited to two months of messages, and an investigator later redacted messages sent while Quon was off-duty. The Fourth Amendment does not require employers to use the 'least intrusive' means possible, so the existence of alternative methods did not render the search unreasonable.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes, I agree with the Court's judgment. The Court wisely declined to establish a broad rule regarding employees' reasonable expectation of privacy in the context of emerging technology. Regardless of the specific analytical framework from O'Connor v. Ortega one applies, the result is the same. As a law enforcement officer on a SWAT team, Quon should have known his work-related communications were subject to scrutiny, giving him only a limited expectation of privacy in this context, and therefore the search was reasonable.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, I agree with the judgment but not all of the reasoning. The Court should not have engaged in the lengthy discussion of the 'operational realities' test from the O'Connor plurality, which is a standardless and unworkable framework. The Court correctly identified that the search was reasonable even assuming the Fourth Amendment applied, and the analysis should have ended there. The Court's digression on the difficulty of applying the Fourth Amendment to new technologies is unnecessary and unfortunately gives credence to a flawed legal test that will confuse lower courts.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its deliberate judicial restraint in an area of rapidly evolving technology. By assuming an expectation of privacy and deciding the case on the narrower grounds of the search's reasonableness, the Supreme Court avoided setting a broad precedent on the Fourth Amendment rights of public employees using employer-provided electronic devices. This leaves the core question of an employee's privacy expectations in digital communications open for future determination as technology and social norms become more settled. The decision provides a practical safe harbor for government employers, confirming that searches motivated by legitimate, work-related purposes and conducted with a reasonable scope will likely be upheld, even if they are not the least intrusive option available.
