WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will decide whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the text messages they send on devices owned by their employers.
The case the court accepted Monday involves public employees, but a broadly written decision could hold a blueprint for private-workplace rules in a world in which communication via computers, e-mail and text messages plays a large role.
A federal appeals court in California decided that a police officer in the city of Ontario had a right to privacy regarding the texts he sent on his department-issued pager, even though his chief discovered that some of them were sexually explicit messages to his girlfriend.
That court said the chief’s decision to read the messages without a suspicion of wrongdoing on the officer’s part violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
The ruling, by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was the first of its kind, and the judges acknowledged that the “recently minted standard of electronic communication via e-mails, text messages and other means opens a new frontier in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that has been little explored.”
The case produced a deep divide among the circuit’s judges. When the full court decided not to reconsider the decision, a 10-page dissent calling it “contrary to the dictates of reason and common sense” seemed written to interest the Supreme Court in the issue.
Most employers routinely tell their workers they have no expectation of privacy when it comes to e-mail and other communications that involve company equipment, and the city of Ontario is no different. It says it “reserves the right to monitor and log all network activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without notice.”
But Jeff Quon, the police officer in the case, said the department sent a different message when it handed out pagers to SWAT team members. The department said that the devices were limited to 25,000 characters each month but that officers also using them for personal purposes could pay for any overage charges.
When the police chief wondered whether the devices were being used mostly for personal messages, the company that provided the texting service, Arch Wireless, turned over transcripts. They showed that a large portion of Quon’s messages were personal, and many of them were sexually explicit.
Quon and three others sued after they learned that their messages had been read.
Judge Kim McLean Wardlaw wrote the circuit court’s opinion supporting Quon, saying the department’s informal policy that personal messages were allowed on the devices meant Quon “had a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The city told the Supreme Court that the panel had it wrong. In this case, its brief said, “the SWAT team sergeant failed to comport himself as a reasonable officer would have, and he and the other plaintiffs embarrassed themselves through their lack of restraint . . .. The city of Ontario should not have to pay for that.”
