Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

City of Ontario v. Quon

United States Supreme Court
130 S. Ct. 2619 (2010)


Facts

Jeff Quon (plaintiff) was a police sergeant with the Ontario Police Department (OPD). In October 2001, the City of Ontario (City) (defendant) distributed pagers to certain employees, including Quon, for use in the course of their law enforcement duties. At the time, the City had in place a policy that reserved its right to monitor all email and internet use on its network and informed employees they had no expectation of privacy in their use of the City’s network. The City made clear to employees that the same policy would apply to text messages. Quon began exceeding his monthly text message limit. Rather than auditing Quon’s text messages to see if the overages were due to work-related text messages, OPD initially allowed Quon to simply reimburse the City for the overage. However, OPD eventually conducted an audit to determine whether the City needed to raise the text message limit by determining whether text message overages were due to work-related messages or personal messages. The phone company provided OPD with transcripts of its employees’ text messages on City pagers. Quon had sent or received 456 messages during work hours, of which only 57 were work-related. OPD determined that Quon had violated OPD rules and disciplined him. Quon brought suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the City violated his Fourth Amendment rights by reading his messages.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Scalia, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 171,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.