RSS
Supreme Court and Kwame!
The Supreme Court announced that it will take up a case involving text messaging on a company paid or co-paid device which will have a profound affect and could impact some already convicted felons.
If the Supreme Court says that individuals have a right to privacy with their texting, or should I say sexting, it could impact the case of Kwame Kilpatrick.
Remember he was convicted as a result of the sexting messages he and his chief of staff Christine Beatty sent to each other.
The Supreme Court said Monday it would rule for the first time on whether employees had a right to privacy when they sent text messages on electronic devices supplied by their employers.
Reported in the L.A. Times, the justices agreed to hear an appeal from the city of Ontario, California which was successfully sued by police Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers after their text messages -- some of which were sexually explicit -- were read by the police chief.
At issue is whether the chief violated their rights under the 4th Amendment, which forbids "unreasonable searches" by the government. The Supreme Court's ruling on the issue, due by June, could set new rules for the workplace in public agencies, and perhaps in private companies as well.
While the 4th Amendment applies only to the government, many judges rely on the high court's privacy rulings in deciding disputes in the private sector, legal experts say.
Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals broke ground when it ruled the officers had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their text messages. The officers had been led to believe by a supervisor that they could use their pagers for personal use, the appeals court said.
However, the city had a policy that said employees had no guarantee of privacy when they used computers, phones and other devices that were owned by the city.
The court said it would hear arguments in the case, City of Ontario vs. Quon, in the spring.
Could some of those text messages or all of them become inadmissible as evidence, I don't know, I am not a lawyer but it will be interesting, again.
Stay tuned, the saga of Kwame Kilpatrick continues.
If the Supreme Court says that individuals have a right to privacy with their texting, or should I say sexting, it could impact the case of Kwame Kilpatrick.
Remember he was convicted as a result of the sexting messages he and his chief of staff Christine Beatty sent to each other.
The Supreme Court said Monday it would rule for the first time on whether employees had a right to privacy when they sent text messages on electronic devices supplied by their employers.
Reported in the L.A. Times, the justices agreed to hear an appeal from the city of Ontario, California which was successfully sued by police Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers after their text messages -- some of which were sexually explicit -- were read by the police chief.
At issue is whether the chief violated their rights under the 4th Amendment, which forbids "unreasonable searches" by the government. The Supreme Court's ruling on the issue, due by June, could set new rules for the workplace in public agencies, and perhaps in private companies as well.
While the 4th Amendment applies only to the government, many judges rely on the high court's privacy rulings in deciding disputes in the private sector, legal experts say.
Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals broke ground when it ruled the officers had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their text messages. The officers had been led to believe by a supervisor that they could use their pagers for personal use, the appeals court said.
However, the city had a policy that said employees had no guarantee of privacy when they used computers, phones and other devices that were owned by the city.
The court said it would hear arguments in the case, City of Ontario vs. Quon, in the spring.
Could some of those text messages or all of them become inadmissible as evidence, I don't know, I am not a lawyer but it will be interesting, again.
Stay tuned, the saga of Kwame Kilpatrick continues.
posted by Brian J Perks at
7:33 AM
1 Comments:
It will be interesting to see what the Court has to say about co-paid devices, but the Court has always ruled that there is no expectation of privacy at work or with employer owned devices. If the Kwon ruling by the 9th is upheld by the SC it will have a severe impact on any company that administers it's own network. Securing the network will become downright impossible so I can't see Kwon winning. I do hope that the SC classifies co-paid devices as work devices. They are a real pain to deal with and they are a serious security risk.
Post a Comment
How to post a comment:
1. Select the Post to which you want to Comment.
2. Scroll down to the add a comment area
3. Select a profile (Google Account, LiveJournal, WordPress, TypePad, AIM, etc..)
4. Create an account or sign in.
5. Post comment.
6. Input security code.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home