A
AALARD
Guest
Top court ruling limits texting privacy
WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday supervisors may read an employee's text messages if they suspect work rules are being violated.
In a unanimous ruling, the justices rejected an argument of privacy rights when they said the Ontario, Calif., police chief did not violate a police officer's rights when he read messages, some sexually explicit, sent from the officers' pagers.
The justices said the police chief's action was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
The case involved Ontario, Calif., police Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers who sued after the police chief read their messages sent on employer-owned equipment. The Supreme Court heard the case after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and a federal electronic communications law protect privacy rights of workers who send text messages, even if the devices are provided by their employers.
The city learned about the messages when the supplier of the devices provided transcripts of text messages when the city was trying to determine whether a monthly character limit for pagers was too low after Quon and others exceeded their limits for several months. After a subsequent internal affairs investigation, Quon was disciplined.
The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, acknowledged the justices didn't address privacy issues raised in the appeal, focusing instead on a narrower issue of reasonable search.
"Prudence counsels caution before the facts in this case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of employees using employer-provided communication devices," the opinion said. " Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law's treatment treatment of them, will evolve."
In reversing and remanding the case, Kennedy said the police chief's review of Quon's pager transcript was reasonable because it was "motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope."
WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday supervisors may read an employee's text messages if they suspect work rules are being violated.
In a unanimous ruling, the justices rejected an argument of privacy rights when they said the Ontario, Calif., police chief did not violate a police officer's rights when he read messages, some sexually explicit, sent from the officers' pagers.
The justices said the police chief's action was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
The case involved Ontario, Calif., police Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers who sued after the police chief read their messages sent on employer-owned equipment. The Supreme Court heard the case after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case the 4th Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and a federal electronic communications law protect privacy rights of workers who send text messages, even if the devices are provided by their employers.
The city learned about the messages when the supplier of the devices provided transcripts of text messages when the city was trying to determine whether a monthly character limit for pagers was too low after Quon and others exceeded their limits for several months. After a subsequent internal affairs investigation, Quon was disciplined.
The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, acknowledged the justices didn't address privacy issues raised in the appeal, focusing instead on a narrower issue of reasonable search.
"Prudence counsels caution before the facts in this case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations of employees using employer-provided communication devices," the opinion said. " Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law's treatment treatment of them, will evolve."
In reversing and remanding the case, Kennedy said the police chief's review of Quon's pager transcript was reasonable because it was "motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope."
