| dbo:abstract |
Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Ontario police sergeant Jeff Quon, along with other officers and those they were exchanging messages with, had sued the city, their superiors and the pager service provider in federal court. They had alleged a violation of not only their constitutional rights but federal telecommunications privacy laws. Their defense was that a superior officer had promised the pager messages themselves would not be audited if the officers reimbursed the city for fees it incurred when they exceeded a monthly character limit. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion signed by seven of his fellow justices. It decided the case purely on the reasonableness of the pager audit, explicitly refusing to consider "far-reaching issues" it raised on the grounds that modern communications technology and its role in society was still evolving. He nevertheless discussed those issues at some length in explaining why the Court chose not to rule on them, in addition to responding, for argument's sake, more directly to issues raised by the respondents. John Paul Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion, as did Antonin Scalia, who would have used a different test he had proposed in an earlier case to reach the same result. Outside commentators mostly praised the justices for this display of restraint, but Scalia criticized it harshly in his concurrence, calling it vague. He considered his fellow justices in "disregard of duty" for their refusal to address the Fourth Amendment issues. A month after the court handed down its decision, an appellate court in Georgia similarly criticized it for "a marked lack of clarity" as it narrowed an earlier ruling to remove a finding that there was no expectation of privacy in the contents of email. An article in The New York Times later summarized this criticism, and its "faux unanimity", as emblematic of what some judges and lawyers have found an increasingly frustrating trend in Roberts Court opinions. (en) |
| dbo:thumbnail |
wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Arch_Wireless_logo.png?width=300 |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink |
http://epic.org/privacy/quon/ http://volokh.com/category/city-of-ontario-v-quon/ https://www.eff.org/cases/city-ontario-v-quon https://www.leagle.com/decision/20061561445fsupp2d111611462 https://www.leagle.com/decision/20081421529f3d89211341 https://www.leagle.com/decision/20091323554ef3d76911319 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1332 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1332.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1332.pdf https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/746/ |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
27748420 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
72515 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1057530997 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbr:Amicus_curiae dbr:Roberts_Court dbr:Ronald_B._Leighton dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:Sandra_Day_O'Connor dbr:Sandra_Segal_Ikuta dbr:En_banc dbr:F._Supp._2d dbr:Memorandum dbr:National_League_of_Cities dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:John_Roberts dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_560 dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Riverside,_California dbr:Character_(computing) dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Customs_Service dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Western_District_of_Washington dbr:United_States_v._Payner dbr:Urinalysis dbr:Virginia_v._Moore dbr:Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement) dbr:Internet dbr:Liberalism dbc:United_States_Internet_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Connick_v._Myers dbr:Conservatism dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:Subpoena dbr:Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act dbr:Electronic_Frontier_Foundation dbr:Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center dbr:Frank_M._Hull dbr:Concurring_opinion dbr:The_New_York_Times dbr:The_Volokh_Conspiracy dbr:The_Washington_Post dbr:Oral_argument dbc:Privacy_of_telecommunications dbr:Anna_Nicole_Smith dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Antonin_Scalia dbc:United_States_public_employment_case_law dbr:Los_Angeles_Times dbr:Malicious_prosecution dbr:California_Public_Records_Act dbr:California_State_Association_of_Counties dbr:Sidearm_(weapon) dbr:Stephen_Breyer dbr:Stephen_G._Larson dbr:Stored_Communications_Act dbr:Email dbr:Plurality_opinion dbr:SWAT dbc:Pagers dbr:Adam_Liptak dbr:Wiretapping dbr:Drug_test dbr:Harvard_Law_Review dbr:League_of_California_Cities dbr:AFL-CIO dbr:American_Civil_Liberties_Union dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbr:Database dbr:Expectation_of_privacy dbr:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Norm_(social) dbr:Pager dbr:Center_for_Democracy_and_Technology dbr:Discovery_(law) dbr:Editorial dbr:Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy dbr:Remand_(court_procedure) dbr:Harry_Blackmun dbr:Harry_Pregerson dbr:Internet_Service_Provider dbr:Invasion_of_privacy dbr:Backup dbr:First_impression_(law) dbr:Public_Citizen dbr:Ars_Technica dbc:2010_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Search_and_seizure_case_law dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbc:Ontario,_California dbr:Jury_trial dbr:Katz_v._United_States dbr:Kim_McLane_Wardlaw dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Labor_union dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Drug_interdiction dbr:Text_message dbr:District_attorney dbr:Dougherty_County,_Georgia dbr:Marc_Rotenberg dbr:Marshall_v._Marshall dbr:Police_car dbr:Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States dbr:Sonia_Sotomayor dbr:National_School_Boards_Association dbr:New_York_Intellectual_Property_Law_Association dbr:O'Connor_v._Ortega dbr:Olmstead_v._United_States dbr:Ontario,_California dbr:Orin_Kerr dbr:Certiorari dbr:Sexting dbr:Workplace_privacy dbr:Probable_cause dbr:Qualified_immunity dbr:Majority_opinion dbr:Rutherford_Institute dbr:Sanitization_(classified_information) dbr:Search_and_seizure dbr:Server_(computing) dbr:Summary_judgment dbr:Plaintiff dbr:Rum-running dbr:Right_to_privacy dbr:Treasury_Employees_v._Von_Raab dbr:Fourth_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Blawg dbr:The_George_Washington_University_Law_School dbr:Alphanumeric_paging dbr:F.3d dbr:File:Anthony_Kennedy_Official.jpg dbr:File:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg dbr:File:Arch_Wireless_logo.png dbr:File:SandraIkuta.jpg dbr:Wikt:excursus |
| dbp:arguedate |
0001-04-19 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:argueyear |
2010 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:case |
City of Ontario v. Quon, (en) |
| dbp:concurrence |
Stevens (en) Scalia (en) |
| dbp:decidedate |
0001-06-17 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:decideyear |
2010 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:docket |
8 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:fullname |
City of Ontario, California, et al., Petitioners v. Jeff Quon, et al. (en) |
| dbp:holding |
Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. (en) Discovery of sexually explicit and otherwise personal text messages sent from police department-owned pager, resulting in disciplinary action against officer pager had been issued to, was incident to reasonable, work-related audit intended to assess efficacy of monthly character limit. (en) |
| dbp:joinmajority |
Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor; Scalia (en) |
| dbp:justia |
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/746/ |
| dbp:lawsapplied |
dbr:Fourth_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution |
| dbp:litigants |
City of Ontario v. Quon (en) |
| dbp:majority |
Kennedy (en) |
| dbp:oralargument |
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1332.pdf |
| dbp:otherSource |
Supreme Court (en) |
| dbp:otherUrl |
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1332.pdf |
| dbp:oyez |
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1332 |
| dbp:parallelcitations |
172800.0 (dbd:second) |
| dbp:prior |
25920.0 (dbd:second) |
| dbp:subsequent |
None (en) |
| dbp:uspage |
746 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:usvol |
560 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Quote dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Ussc dbt:US4thAmendment |
| dct:subject |
dbc:United_States_Internet_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:Privacy_of_telecommunications dbc:United_States_public_employment_case_law dbc:Pagers dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbc:2010_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Search_and_seizure_case_law dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbc:Ontario,_California |
| rdf:type |
owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRobertsCourt yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase |
| rdfs:comment |
Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
City of Ontario v. Quon (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
freebase:City of Ontario v. Quon yago-res:City of Ontario v. Quon wikidata:City of Ontario v. Quon https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4sVzm |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon?oldid=1057530997&ns=0 |
| foaf:depiction |
wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Arch_Wireless_logo.png wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/SandraIkuta.jpg wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Anthony_Kennedy_Official.jpg |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon |
| foaf:name |
(en) City of Ontario, California, et al., Petitioners v. Jeff Quon, et al. (en) |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of |
dbr:Ontario_v_Quon dbr:City_of_Ontario_v_Quon dbr:560_U.S._746 dbr:Ontario_v._Quon dbr:Quon_v._Ontario |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:Ontario_v_Quon dbr:City_of_Ontario_v_Quon dbr:560_U.S._746 dbr:Ontario_v._Quon dbr:Quon_v._Ontario |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon |
