Police Officers' Sexting Case Headed To Supreme Court

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against public employees who claimed a local government violated their privacy by reading text messages they sent on their employers' account.

Sergeant Jeff Quon and three other plaintiffs, including Quon's wife and mistress, who were also employed with the Ontario police department, sued the Chief of police for reading explicit messages that were sent via pagers provided by the department.

The private messages were discovered by Quon's employer following "an investigation looking into excessive texting at the department," MSNBC reports.

A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2008, and now the defendants have appealed their case.

The Supreme Court's ruling is likely to have major repercussions for employees' privacy rights.

Several justices said Monday that the employer, the Ontario, Calif., police department, acted reasonably in monitoring the text messages in view of its written policy warning employees they have no guarantee of privacy in the use of office computer and electronics equipment.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he didn't see "anything, quite honestly, unreasonable about that."

While the case involves government workers, the decision could have broader privacy implications. Many employers tell workers there is no guarantee of privacy in anything sent over their company- or government-provided computers, cell phones or pagers.

Comments

[JustAThought56]

02:00 PM on 04/21/2010

KIV possum, et al., the case is summarized here:

http://epic.org/privacy/quon/

There is an abundance of case law that establishes the fact that employers have an absolute right of ownership to anything that an individual produces when they are on company time using company equipment.

I really hope the Supreme Court gets a clue about the implications surrounding property rights to electronic transactions and finds on behalf of the county. Some of them are just ignorant but Roberts in particular is a technophobe.

In my opinion, making this an issue of personal privacy is simply absurd. There was a written policy that the plaintiff agreed to abide by that the county had the right to review all communications made by employees on company time using company equipment, and that stated the employees had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The immediate superior told the plaintiff that he would not review records if the plaintiff paid for overage, which as far as I can see just makes the immediate superior fodder for the unemployment line for attempting to circumvent written policy, and does not change written company policies.

[Craig 212]

01:37 PM on 04/21/2010

I can see two somewhat opposing sides of the issue.

On the one hand, yes, the pagers were provided by the police department, and I can understand why any non-police related use of it could be penalized.

But I do have to wonder. If the messages in question weren't "sexts", but about, say, sports or anything else as bland and "innocent"- would this be an issue? My thinking is no, probably not. Seems like just another example of how sexually repressed this country is.

[JustAThought56]

02:12 PM on 04/21/2010

You make an interesting point, but your last sentence does not make sense. The person who made the texts is pretty obviously not repressed. He was angry that his texts were not as private as he thought they were.

If you look at the actual case, you will see that the county asked for reports on what exactly was being texted to find out if there was a need to pay for everyone to have increased usage because the overages were being caused by business-related transactions, or if they should not pay for increased usage because the overages were being caused by personal messages.

They could only discover that by examining content. If it had been sports or something more bland, the county's concern would have been the same. But you are right in that it is doubtful that anyone would have sued for violating privacy over, say, the contents of a grocery list, although the principles are exactly the same.

[thepoliticalcat]

07:43 PM on 04/20/2010

The issue that the Court will determine here is, what constitutes a "reasonable" expectation of privacy where one is using equipment supplied by the employer, presumably on the employer's time, and where the employer already has in place a policy, made known to all employees, that it is in the habit of monitoring such communications. It's an interesting case, because attempts will be made to argue that it applies (or does not apply) to people who might not have the exact same set of facts to present.

[blukazoo]

12:11 PM on 04/20/2010

I'm not sure when the messages were sent, but if they were sent during business hours, the employer should fire the employee for a mis-use of their time as well.

[TexasDem0]

12:08 PM on 04/20/2010

I think the issue is deeper than whose equipment is used for a conversation. For example, suppose Jeff Quon’s wife called him at work and the conversation ended with an intimate remark. Would the City of Ontario have a right to listen to that conversation, or does he have a right to privacy? What if it had been a face to face conversation in the office? Would the city have the right to snoop on that conversation? When you use your employer’s restroom equipment, do they have a right to monitor your activity?

[TexasDem0]

12:15 PM on 04/20/2010

By the way, how many people posting comments here are doing it on their employer’s equipment, network, or time?

[Harbinger08]

02:20 PM on 04/21/2010

Most, I'll bet.

[Bushisgone]

01:55 PM on 04/20/2010

if you use an employers phone's or computer you aren't very smart.

You have no right to use company equipment for your personal entertainment

They are totally wrong

And the cop was sexting his wife and Mistress, he should be Fired with no pension
And he should also keep it in his pants

[jcarrme]

11:09 AM on 04/20/2010

Private messages sent on employee equipment becomes employee property.

[KIVPossum]

11:59 AM on 04/20/2010

And private messages sent on employer equipment become employer property

[blukazoo]

12:09 PM on 04/20/2010

It's not private if the equipment doesn't belong to you. A person may as well take out a billboard.

[udontknow]

11:04 AM on 04/20/2010

This should not even be in court. Why someone feels the right to use an employer's equipment without it having the right to monitor is beyond me. Best believe if the officers were transacting drug deals on the pagers, the entire police department would be liable for NOT keeping tabs on what the officers are texting.

[DevonTexas]

11:01 AM on 04/20/2010

wanna sent sexy texts? Buy your own danged phone! If the employer supplies it, they own it!

[Lulubelle1]

10:44 AM on 04/20/2010

Anyone who wants privacy can purchase their own communication device and pay the bills on it. Beyond that, deal with it.

I hate to tell them this, but even then, information that travels through the air is apt to be intercepted, either intentionally or unintentionally.

[Jeff Yablon]

10:17 AM on 04/20/2010

US Supreme Court Ready to Overrule NJ Supreme Court on E-Mail Privacy?

Thank goodness. The NJ story a few weeks ago ( http://answerguy.com/2010/03/31/illegal-read-employees-email/ ) looked dumb then, and even dumber now.

Seriously . . . if it's company issued, and you were advised of policy? IT BELONGS TO THE ISSUER. Done. And even if just from a clarity standpoint on the issue, EVERYONE should be happy about this.

[Hank10303]

10:13 AM on 04/20/2010

The true core of the issue is that the officers felt they had a right to an expectation of privacy. Which is the actual law from which their defense stems.

There are two very important facts and one minor one that is clearly against the officers. First who purchased the devices and who was paying the cost, fees, etc. Clearly the police department. The minor consideration is for what purpose were the devices issued. If the users were not paying any of the fees and costs then what right did they have to use them for personal reasons? Technically none other than the departments tolerance. Tolerance is not a right and damages resulting from ones tolerance are not damages but choices we make in taking advantage of a tolerance granted.

For example, if you use a phone in a hospital lobby and someone is listening in on another extension you have no right to an expectation of privacy - its a public phone and its use provided to you is a courtesy. One cannot turn a courtesy into a right. Allowing these officers to utilize the phone features would never have become an issue if not for the excessive use of those features and the resulting cost. The police department paid those bills and as a result have monetary damage. Therefore technically the employees were stealing funds.

[KIVPossum]

12:01 PM on 04/20/2010

I know cops aren't the sharpest of the lot but...........written policy warning employees they have no guarantee of privacy in the use of office computer and electronics equipment.

That's a giveaway to most people that they don't have an expectation of privacy.

[JustAThought56]

03:40 PM on 04/21/2010

Actually, the police officer payed the over usage fees, but you are right in your other points, in my opinion.

The written policy that the communications are not private existed, and everyone knew about them. The issue is that the supervisor made a separate agreement with the officer that he would not look at the content as long as the over usage fees were paid.

Everything was fine until over usage became a county wide issue and some people complained that they were being forced to pay over usage on work-related calls. So the county, unaware of the separate agreement, asked the third party carrier for message content information on the heaviest users. They wanted to see if the over usage was in fact for work and they needed to increase and pay for the maximum number of messages allowed, or if it was being caused by personal messages. This guy was in that pool. The county had no idea he had made an agreement for privacy with his superior.

The question is, did the separate agreement between the officer and his supervisor establish a reasonable expectation for privacy? In my opinion, the answer is no because supervisors and managers can't make agreements that violate company policy without obtaining agreement to the exception from those who set the policies.

[RulesToo]

10:08 AM on 04/20/2010

This Supreme Court is not constitutional as it is a solely owned extension of the Catholic Church. With a majority of its members under the command of the Pope it has no authority and can not be recognized by any true American citizen. Remember Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin.

[robinree]

10:19 AM on 04/20/2010

Give me a break! That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[mjeffn]

10:33 AM on 04/20/2010

The resemblence of this remark to the Knows Nothing Party's (became the American Party - became the Republican Party) of the middle 1850's is shameful. You should use quotes making a statement and give credit where credit is due. You are a plagiarist.

I will pop some corn and sit and enjoy watching you teabaggers turn your weapons on each other once you realize the only thing you have in common is the love of a dangerous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[mjeffn]

10:42 AM on 04/20/2010

...to be complete, why don't you add the rest of the platform since you have such a good start.

limited immigration from Catholic countries
restricting political office to native-born Americans
Mandated 21 year wait for a foreigner to gain citizenship
Restricting public school teachers to Protestants
Mandatory daily reading of the Protestant version of the Bible in public schools
Restricting the sale of liqueur

(Source Wikipedia - The Know Nothings)

[RulesToo]

11:33 AM on 04/21/2010

Wow, didn't know this went back that far. Thanks for the update but I stand by my statements. The SCOTUS should not have a majority of its justices representing the beliefs of the Pope and I don't believe Jefferson, Adams and Franklin would approve.

[ChicoHash]

10:07 AM on 04/20/2010

An employer’s property is subject to their rules for acceptable use. Not just to for cost containment but also for their own self preservation. Depending on the nature of the business, a company can be held liable for what is contained on their electronic devices. So a company has every right to do what they feel is appropriate for them in regards to usage of equipment.

[KIVPossum]

09:38 AM on 04/20/2010

How can any court rule in favor the the plaintiffs? What you do on your phone, your computer, with your camera, is your business. What you do with your employers' is their business.

[amdezurik]

10:19 AM on 04/20/2010

except it was not THEIR phones, accounts or time. they beloned to the taxpayers for official purposes. if they wanted to do these kinds of messages they can buy their own equipment and accounts.

[Wahchintonka]

10:33 AM on 04/20/2010

Don't confuse the issue. The taxpayers "funded" the police dept., that's where the taxpayers involvement ends.The police dept. becomes responsible for how they use those funds and they have acted responsibly, set a fair and understandable policy and are merely enforcing that policy. Why this is even proceeding to the SC is utterly ridiculous.

[thomasjo]

10:36 AM on 04/20/2010

That was KIV's point, if you read the last half of his post:

"What you do with your employers' is their business."

The plaintiffs in this case, are the officers who mis-used the phones. The defendant is the police department. Looks like you and KIV agree.

[noaxe397]

09:34 AM on 04/20/2010

Cops act recklessly all the time with high speed chases and shoot first incidents that cost innocent, or hardly guilty people their lives. Only if the cop was stinking drunk when he pulled the trigger do juries ever convict a cop.


But here, over some inapproprite use of a cell phone do we go all the way to the Supreme Court.

[MNKen]

11:01 AM on 04/20/2010

Please ignore the fact that these are cops. This is an employer/employee situation. Could be for any sales person on the road or a mid-level manager who travels between company branches. This is a big deal and involves company security. If my company suspects an employee of breaching confidentiality or passing sensitive information, they should have the right to monitor that person's company-owned communications devices.