In its recent decision bringing together sensitive issues of workplace privacy and electronic communications, the Supreme Court in City of Ontario v. Quon1 unanimously held that the city’s audit of a police officer’s text messages was a reasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Although the “case touched issues of far-reaching significance,” the Court took a cautious approach in its first application of the Fourth Amendment to electronic workplace communications. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia wrote short concurrences.
The decision in Quon sticks closely to the specific facts of the case, but does decide some important Fourth Amendment issues, while leaving others unresolved. After sketching out the facts and summarizing the rationale of the decision, we will double back and inventory the pertinent Fourth Amendment issues, determining which were resolved in Quon, and which remain open.
Facts
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
