Home  ›  News  ›

Courts Rule Employers Can Search Employee Text Messages

Article Comments  39  

Jun 18, 2010, 10:01 AM   by Eric M. Zeman

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that employers at public organizations, such as police departments or local governments, have the right to search text messages sent by employees as long as "a legitimate work-related purpose" exists. The ruling was made in connection with a lawsuit filed by a police officer in California who believed the Fourth Amendment protected his rights against "unreasonable search." In the case, the Police Department of Ontario, Calif., audited the text messages sent by employees in an attempt to determine the break down of business and personal use. The officers (and all City of Ontario employees) were told "light personal communication" was acceptable. The audit showed messages of an explicit nature sent by Sgt. Jeff Quon and exposed an affair. Sgt. Quon, another officer, and Quon's wife and mistress all sued, saying their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The local court decided against Quon and sided with the city. That decision was reversed upon appeal. The Supreme Court ruling sides with the City of Ontario. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the city "had a legitimate interest in ensuring that employees were not being forced to pay out of their own pockets for work-related expenses, or on the other hand that the city was not paying for extensive personal communications." The bottom line is that this ruling provides the legal basis for public employers to search the text messages of public employees, who should not have any reasonable expectation of privacy with public-issued mobile phones. The ruling does not apply to employees of private companies.

New York Times »

Related

Comments

This forum is closed.

This forum is closed.

tzsm98

Jun 20, 2010, 5:34 PM

Ownership of phone contents an issue

In the immediate aftermath of the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City a utility company employee took a memorable picture of a fireman bringing a small child out of the smoking rubble. The utility argued successfully that they owned the image because the employee was on the clock and tool the picture as part of his normal work duties of investigating utility disruptions. These days a company issued camera phone would most likely be the tool used. So, would the company own the text messages, picture messages, notes and other information on the device? I believe they would if created on the clock or if the employee's duties included creation of similar items.
The bottom line is if you choose to use an employer provided or reimbursed cell phone, you choose to give up any rights to what's on it. You also choose to give up any right to privacy in text messages, picture messages, and even in who you call. Co...
(continues)
...
What if you receive a dicount on your private phone because of your job?

Where I live, Verizon offers 12% dicount to fire fighters in our city. Does that give the city ? By accepting the discount, is my phone no longer strictly private?
...
justfinethanku

Jun 18, 2010, 10:08 AM

PUBLICLY ISSUES MOBILE PHONES (only)

Make sure my boss knows this.

Also, that it does not apply to private orginizations
Exactly, they pay the tab its their phone, not yours. Its just for you to use. This would be quite different if it was your own personal phone.
All this means is that this ruling referred to public agencies. No ruling either way was made about private ones.

Essentially, the best rule of thumb comes down to who paid for the phone and who is paying for the service.
...
Sorry justfinethanku, private companies do this on your company email already. No reason they can't do it on phones *they* gave to you and *they* pay the monthly tab for so you can conduct *their* business on it. Whaddya think Enterprise Servers do; t...
(continues)
...
evrodude

Jun 18, 2010, 1:05 PM

It's a basic concept

that a lot of people do not seem to understand. If a phone is give to you by your employer, it is their phone and they can go through it's contents any time they want. So therefore you should not be using any company property for personal use.
And if you refuse to let them check the content of the phone they let you use, they can fire you. if you work as an at will employee they don't even need a reason to fire you.
...
kingstu

Jun 18, 2010, 10:27 AM

Another reason for dual-sim phones...

Keep your personal life and your business life separate and still only carry one device. Who wants to start making dual-sim smart phones?
I'll make you one tomorrow ๐Ÿ˜‰
...
Who needs dual-SIM phones when there's Google Voice?
...
kingstu said:
Keep your personal life and your business life separate and still only carry one device. Who wants to start making dual-sim smart phones?


That would great if the company's phone service is AT&T or T-Mo...
(continues)
...
Nextel has offered second line service on the same phone for years. Your employer gets a bill for their number, and you get one for yours.
muchdrama

Jun 18, 2010, 5:21 PM

And the moral is...

...no sextin' at work.
muchdrama said:
...no sextin' at work.


What!
rlpinca

Jun 18, 2010, 11:56 AM

People just don't think

Although I don't agree with the ruling, I wouldn't be dumb enough to use a company(public) supplied phone for any personal reasons especially if it's something that could get me in trouble.


Just like with company e mail, gotta think about if you'll get in trouble before you hit send
People use the company web and other stuff as it is their own. You go to work to , well, work!
Daniel Dc5

Jun 18, 2010, 11:29 AM

ANDROID!!!!!

We all love it!!!!!
Just as irrelevant.... ๐Ÿคจ
...
Azeron

Jun 18, 2010, 11:40 AM

Blackberry Messenger

Why would anyone use anything but Blackberry Messenger to conduct illicit affairs?
 
 
Page  1  of 1

Subscribe to news & reviews with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.