The Application of Privacy Laws
THE APPLICATION OF PRIVACY LAWS
TOPIC READING:
City of Ontario, California, et al. v Quon, et al. 560 U.S.___(2010)
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What were the material facts of City of Ontario, California, et al. v Quon, et al. (Ontario v Quon)?
Petitioner Ontario (hereinafter City) acquired alphanumeric pagers able to send and receive text messages. Its contract with its service provider, Arch Wireless, provided for a monthly limit on the number of characters each pager could send or receive, and specified that usage exceeding that number would result in an additional fee.
The City issued the pagers to respondent Quon and other officers in its police department (OPD), also a petitioner here.
When Quon and others exceeded their monthly character limits for several months running, petitioner Scharf, OPD’s chief, sought to determine whether the existing limit was too low, i.e., whether the officers had to pay fees for sending work-related messages or, conversely, whether the overages were for personal messages.
After Arch Wireless provided transcripts of Quon’s and another employee’s August and September 2002 text messages, it was discovered that many of Quon’s messages were not work related, and some were sexually explicit.
It it also important to note that the pager use was covered by the OPD's computer and Internet use policy, under which employees agreed that "the city reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice."
2. Briefly describe the procedural history of Ontario v Quon.
The district court: ruled that Quon and his fellow plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It ordered a jury trial to determine whether the purpose of the audit was, as the department maintained, to find out whether it needed higher character limits or, as Quon claimed, to expose the personal nature of the texts.
Court of Appeal: Quon et al. On appeal in 2008, a
TOPIC READING:
City of Ontario, California, et al. v Quon, et al. 560 U.S.___(2010)
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What were the material facts of City of Ontario, California, et al. v Quon, et al. (Ontario v Quon)?
Petitioner Ontario (hereinafter City) acquired alphanumeric pagers able to send and receive text messages. Its contract with its service provider, Arch Wireless, provided for a monthly limit on the number of characters each pager could send or receive, and specified that usage exceeding that number would result in an additional fee.
The City issued the pagers to respondent Quon and other officers in its police department (OPD), also a petitioner here.
When Quon and others exceeded their monthly character limits for several months running, petitioner Scharf, OPD’s chief, sought to determine whether the existing limit was too low, i.e., whether the officers had to pay fees for sending work-related messages or, conversely, whether the overages were for personal messages.
After Arch Wireless provided transcripts of Quon’s and another employee’s August and September 2002 text messages, it was discovered that many of Quon’s messages were not work related, and some were sexually explicit.
It it also important to note that the pager use was covered by the OPD's computer and Internet use policy, under which employees agreed that "the city reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice."
2. Briefly describe the procedural history of Ontario v Quon.
The district court: ruled that Quon and his fellow plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It ordered a jury trial to determine whether the purpose of the audit was, as the department maintained, to find out whether it needed higher character limits or, as Quon claimed, to expose the personal nature of the texts.
Court of Appeal: Quon et al. On appeal in 2008, a