Legal News

Scotus Roundup: On Text Messages and . . . Waiting for Citizens?

By Ashby Jones

Some search-and-seizure cases taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court concern sets of facts so specific and arcane that it’s hard to know what to make of them. (For instance, in Arizona v. Gant the court last term ruled that a police officer officer needs a warrant before searching a car after an arrest of the car’s occupant, unless at the time of the search the person is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle or police officers have reason to believe that the evidence for the crime the person is being arrested will be found in the vehicle. Uh, okay. Have fun with that one, cops!)

But on Monday, the court granted cert on a fact-pattern that any government employee with a BlackBerry can likely appreciate. The court agreed Monday to consider whether government employers can read text messages that their workers send and receive on workplace devices. Click here for the WSJ story.

The case centers on this simple and rather compelling question: whether a police officer in Ontario, Calif., had a right to privacy for the text messages he sent and received on a pager provided by the police department.

The city said Sgt. Jeff Quon used his pager to send hundreds of personal messages to his wife, his girlfriend and another officer. Many of the messages were sexually explicit, the city said. The police department obtained transcripts of the officers’ text messages while investigating officers who had repeatedly exceeded monthly character limits for the devices.

The city’s wireless provider, Arch Wireless, now part of USA Mobility Inc., released the messages’ contents to the department.

The Ninth Circuit last year ruled that the city’s review of the messages was an unreasonable search.

In other Supreme Court news, it became clear on Friday that the Court would not issue its long-awaited campaign-finance opinion, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, until next year. As a result, reports Politico, folks with an interest in the 2010 midterm elections are getting a bit impatient.

“If the court doesn't come out with a decision until mid-January, people are going to get antsy, because that's going to affect their strategy," said Brett Kappel, a Democratic lawyer who advises candidates, political action committees and trade associations on election law compliance to Politico. "They are anxiously awaiting the decision, so they know exactly what the ground rules are going to be for the midterms," said Kappel, who said he's telling his clients, many of whom could be granted greater leeway in their spending by the ruling, to "hold tight."

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 14, 2009 (boomark / email).