Supreme Court Decides to Hear Text Message Privacy Case

Jason Barry — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:08:29 -0600

In a legal back-and-forth between the Ontario Police Department in California and Sergeant Jeff Quon, the overarching privacy issues concerning technology have come into full view (once again).

Sgt. Jeff Quon sued the Ontario Police Department after his texting transcripts were read by his lieutenant. While the messages were sent to/from a department-issued pager (yep, pager), Sgt. Quon claims his fourth amendment rights were violated by the department.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Sgt. Quon saying that the lieutenant had made an informal policy change to view transcripts on accounts who didn’t pay their overage fees. In viewing Sgt. Quon’s transcripts, he violated his own policy and thus violated Sgt. Quon’s constitutional rights.

To take a step further, the Ontario Police Department petitioned the Supreme Court requesting the case to be overturned on the precedent that the lieutenant had no authority to overturn the department policy that all privacy is relinquished when using department equipment, including pagers.

Most companies force employees to sign IT Privacy restriction documents waiving all rights on company owned equipment. Do you think your privacy is violated if an IT guy snoops around your employer-issued computer?

Part of Patriot Act Struck Down

Erin Simon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:01:59 -0500

An Oregon District Court has struck down two sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as amended by the Patriot Act for violating the Fourth Amendment. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823 allow the government to conduct surveillance without a warrant when collection of foreign intelligence is “a significant purpose” of the surveillance. A line of cases interpreting the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and warrant requirements has held that foreign intelligence must be the “primary purpose” of such surveillance in order to square with the Constitution.

The case began with the misidentification of a fingerprint in the investigation of 2004's train bombings in Madrid. The FBI mistakenly identified Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim convert, as a suspect in that act of terrorism. Before arresting him, the Bureau accordingly searched his house and office, put him under round-the-clock surveillance, and wiretapped his phone, all without judicial oversight, and all permitted under the language of the Patriot Act's revisions to FISA.

Mayfield settled part of the suit for $2 million dollars, but the settlement left the door open for the attorney to challenge the law that had authorized his surveillance. A Department of Justice internal probe called the Mayfield investigation inappropriate and potentially motivated by his Muslim faith.

Yesterday's District Court opinion stressed the importance of the 4th Amendment's check against such abuses: "For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

Photo courtesy nolifebeforecoffee.

Maximum PC fourth amendment RSS Feed

Supreme Court Decides to Hear Text Message Privacy Case

Part of Patriot Act Struck Down