US Supreme Court Rules 9-0 – Employer Had Right to Text Messages

18 June 2010 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

The Ontario, CA Police Department (OPD) did not violate the 4th Amendment by reviewing text messages sent from a work pager. Apparently the OPD’s warrantless audit found Officer Quon had sent or received 456 messages, but only 57 were work-related. The OPD Computer Policy included the following provisions that the OPD “reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice. Users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.” The Court ruled that the “warrantless 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.” Today so many employees use cell phones and PDA provided by employers that surely the Supreme Court’s ruling will impact all employees, not just government employees.

Privacy Ruling in California Court

The Supreme Court ruling in the Quon case should also impact the May 26, 2010 ruling where US District Judge Margaret Morrow ruled that messages posted on Facebook and MySpace may not be subpoenaed. Based on the Supreme Court ruling in Quon, employees who post private messages on social media using their work computers, cell phones, or PDAs may not be able to claim privacy communications. The ruling in the Quon case is one more reason for Congress to review the 1986 Stored Communications Act given the use of social media communications. Stay tuned on how the Quon ruling will impact all businesses.
 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services