Technology is changing the way that everyone lives their daily lives. One such place that this can be seen is within the area of law where the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments as to if employees have the right to privacy when texting.
What happened was the City of Ontario, California is appealing a ruling in favor of four police officers who sued the city for violating their fourth amendment rights when the chief of police saw what they were texting.
The issue becomes even murkier when you consider the fact that the devices that were used by the police officers were provided to them by the police department and some of the text messages were sexually explicit.
What all of this shows is that high court is going to rule on how matters of law apply to this new technology.
This can have severe implications because many of the lower courts use what is known as legal precedent and previous Supreme Court decisions to decide issues of privacy in numerous different cases.
Like many of the famous cases that the court has wrestled with in the past this one will more than likely become the first landmark cases regarding the new economy and the modern day democracy.
Supreme Court Texting Case
I think that if the city provided the device, then they should win the case. Simple as that, Unless the defendents have spicific permission to us the device for personal use, that could be a case for the court.
the officers are public servants the same as with many politicians who have lost their jobs for the same, should the city fire them or place them on UNPAID administrative leave pending the investigation by IA. Furthermore, as police officers they have radios, a dept phone is not necessary nor is it appropriate to be texting sexually explicit material during on duty hours amendment rights or not. Our societies problem is no one is setting a good example.
If and only if a signed agreement between the officer and official authorizing the use of this phone for OFFICIAL business will the case be favored to the state. Now, it’s common sense that a business phone, PC, etc.. being used, MUST be used for BUSINESS only, so technically no agreement was needed to be signed, a verbal instruction should be sufficient; however, the courts like a paper trail.
I agree with what Mr. Townsend says about the officers not using cell phones that were provided by their dept. for personal use. Where I have to disagree is when he says they have “radio’s” which is true. The thing that makes the use of cell phones … is the fact that all the bad people have scanners and can listen to the police radio.