Privacy Laws City of Ontario, California, Et Al. V Quon, Et Al. 560 U.S. (2010) Essay

Words: 1890
Pages: 8



City of Ontario, California, et al. v Quon, et al. 560 U.S.___(2010)

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
…show more content…
"It is preferable to dispose of this case on narrower grounds."

I.e. saying that technology is rapidly changing and cannot cast blanket rule over technology based issued regarding privacy. Rather better to approach each case on its own merits and facts. 8. What rights, within the context of this case, does the Fourth Amendment protect for United States citizens? Explain the case law concerning the application of the Fourth Amendment to government (ie, public sector) employees.

The amendment guarantees a persons privacy, dignity, and security against arbitarty and invasive governmental acts without regard as to whether the government actor is investigating crime or performing other functions.

The case would involve two areas of law, both coming under the Fourth Amendment. The first was the privacy rights Quon and the other officers had over text messages sent on equipment paid for by their employers. The other was their rights as public employees, since their superiors were also agents of the state.

 Supreme Court had first dealt with the Fourth Amendment rights of government employees under administrative investigation in O'Connor v. Ortega, a case arising from the search of a supervising physician's office and records at a California public hospital.
 By a 5-4 margin the court had ruled that while public employees had Fourth Amendment protections,