High court to settle 'sexting' at work case

Supreme Court to decide where government can draw the line on racy messages being sent and received over government networks

The future of employee privacy rights in the workplace has taken center stage this week as the  U.S. Supreme Court takes up a case involving an Ontario, Calif., police officer and sexting. The case also might be exposing several justices' technological naiveté.

The case in question stems from an Ontario, Calif., SWAT sergeant, Jeff Quon, who was caught sending 456 personal text messages — an average of 28 per shift — with his department-issued smart phone while on duty. The city’s wireless contract put a limit on messaging, and he and other officers were exceeding that limit, causing overage charges. So the city looked at the messages from the top two offenders — Quon was one — and found that only three were work-related.

Not only were most of Quon's text messages personal rather than about work, many were sexually explicit. To complicate matters, the two recipients of those messages — his wife and mistress — both worked for the Ontario police department.

So Quon’s employer found out about his sexting after an internal investigation into excessive texting in the department. Quon, in turn, sued the police department for violating his privacy.

As the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments April 20, a couple of justices seemed to struggle to understand how text messages work, according to the "DC Dicta" blog of LawyersUSA.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wanted more information about how text messages can be sent and received. If one of the officers sent a message at the same time another one was composing a text message, Kennedy asked whether the phone would generate a message that states, "Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you shortly."

For his part, Justice Anthony Scalia wanted to know whether Quon could "print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies."

By the end of June, the court is expected to decide this case. Stay tuned to see whether they restrict their opinions to the details of the case or issue a more comprehensive — and perhaps restrictive — interpretation of privacy at work.

For more information, click here.

About the Author

Connect with the FCW staff on Twitter @FCWnow.

inside gcn

  • digital model of city (Shutterstock.com)

    Why you need a digital twin

Reader Comments

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 KTT

Kind of arrogant suing his employer don't you think?. Who owns the phone? Pay's the bills and his paycheck? I can't believe were talking about a SWAT Officer! Of all the law enforcement jobs SWAT is known for it's discipline, dedication.

Fri, Apr 23, 2010 Wayne Washington DC

'Observer', You bring up an interesting point. We have a "Limited Personal Use" policy at the Federal agency where I work. I can use the Government cell phone or laptop in my posession to do things like send my wife a message "Honey, I'll be staying late tonight..." I have no expectation of privacy, but then again I have no problem with the boss or even the whole staff reading the message. If I had sent sexting messages I would be fired -- rightly so. That SWAT officer deserves to be fired and it is obvious to me why he wants to bury the details. If I were a wierdo, I might try the "privacy" angle too.

Thu, Apr 22, 2010 The Observer

I wonder if there would be a lawsuit if adultery was not exposed?

Thu, Apr 22, 2010 James Holland Indialantic, FL

The FCC use to have R & Rs’ that required all Operators’ to make sure that there was absolutely complete privacy in all communications transmissions whether they were Audio telegraphic or digital. Thos Rule & Regulations’ have not been changed. This should be a matter for the Federal Communications commission rather than the Supreme Court, as it is already an established fact, until these R & Rs' are changed.

Thu, Apr 22, 2010

Agree to both comments. This is such an "open and shut" case. The stupidity is that the officer had an opportunity to sue and that it should end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Certainly a terrible waste of taxpayer money.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group