The Search under the Fourth Amendment - Assignment Example

There are two issues that come out clearly in this case. Quon’s, Duke, the boss tells him there would be no need to carry out an audit of the text messages as long as he paid the overages. On the other hand, the OPD makes it clear that none of the pager messages would be private. Quon went ahead to make an assumption that his boss’ pronouncements could override the provisions of the OPD.

No part of the OPD provisions indicates that an employee’s pronouncements were superior to documented OPD provisions. Quon thus wrongfully expected privacy due to the mere fact his boss had promised not to audit the messages so long as he paid the overages. Such a pronouncement, therefore, does not suspend the OPD provisions. That renders Quon culpable.
If the case had involved an employer-supplied device other than a pager, it surely would have been decided differently. The OPD provisions are very particular/specific on the device involved.

It only refers to the pager text message as not being private. If a device had been involved other than the pager, the provision wouldn’t have applied. The case would have been decided differently. Quon demand for privacy would have been validated.
Auditing text messages is obviously less intrusive than phone wiretapping. This is because, in the case of auditing text messages, the device user is made aware of the need to carry out an audit. In the case of phone wiretapping, the user’s device such as the telephone is covertly monitored.

This is considered unlawful in most cases. Phone wiretapping is more intrusive than carrying out an audit of the messages.
There is no broad ground for determining Quon’s case. There a number of technical aspects of the case, all of which must be weighed. If the broadly applicable rules for electronic communication had been applied in determining the case, the court would have looked at how Quon’s use of the work device for other personal communication had affected his use of the same device for its main purpose.

If his use of the pager for personal communications doesn’t affect the main purpose for which the device was given, then there should problem or cause of intruding into his privacy. References