|
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently in the process of figuring out if law enforcement officers or other public-sector employees have any expectation of privacy when using a city- or employer-issued cell phone. The case involves an Ontario, California sergeant and his use of a city-issued text messaging pager to exchange hundreds of personal messages, some of which were of a sexually explicit nature. The question for the High Court is whether or not the sergeant had a right to expect those messages would be kept private.
The case has been described by legal observers as "inevitable," and will establish rules for how far a government employer may go to monitor the private communications of its workers when they believe that the use of such equipment is being abused or used for purposes unrelated to work.
In addition, the court will explore whether or not service providers can be held liable for providing those communications without the consent of the sender. Courts have generally said that private communications, even when delivered or transmitted through a public portal, are generally protected from "unreasonable search and seizure," such as handwritten letters sent in sealed envelopes through the U.S. Postal Service.
However, if there is a suspicion about possible terrorism issues, then all bets are off. The issue before the court now is basically whether an employer has the right to make sure an employee is using the employer's phone for personal communication by checking the devices themselves. The Ontario, California Police department has a "Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy" that gives workers only limited use for personal communications.
The sergeant signed a statement acknowledging that "use of these tools for personal benefit is a significant violation of City of Ontario Policy" and that "users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources." But he added that he was unaware the city's overall policy applied to the department and said there was an "informal policy that allowed officers to maintain their privacy in their text messages as long as they paid the overage charges."
The city's contract with Arch Wireless, now known as USA Mobility, allowed for a 25,000-character limit per month, per device, before overage charges kicked in. The sergeant acknowledged he exceeded the limit at least several times and paid the extra charges out of his personal funds, as required by his bosses. But allegedly his supervisor grew "tired of being a bill collector" for his text-happy officers, and the chief of police ordered a review of the pager transcripts for the two officers with the highest overages.
Officials claimed in court that the review was done only "to determine whether the city's monthly character limit was insufficient to cover business-related messages." The transcripts of the sergeant's text messages, which were voluntarily provided by Arch Wireless, included racy messages to his wife, his girlfriend and a fellow officer.
A review of just one month found that the sergeant sent and received 456 personal messages while on duty, an average of 28 per shift. Only three of those messages were considered work-related. The sergeant has sued the wireless company and the city for invasion of privacy.
That lawsuit, in addition to any possible disciplinary action against the officer, have been shelved until the Supreme Court resolves the larger legal questions. A federal appeals court three-judge panel ruled in favor of the sergeant, saying that "the police department opted to review the contents of all the messages, work-related and personal, without his consent, which made the search excessively intrusive in light of the noninvestigatory object of the search." Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites        
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed