2009 Supreme Court term

CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. JEFF QUON, ET AL.

Dockets 08-1332Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Kent L. Richland, the petitioners contend that Sergeant Quon had no reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages sent on his department‑issued pager because the department’s policy expressly prohibited privacy.

According to Mr. Richland, the petitioners also argue that if Sergeant Quon loses, the other plaintiffs must also lose.

According to Respondents (Mr. Katyal), according to Respondents (Mr. Katyal), the respondents argue that a federal statute such as the Stored Communications Act does not alter the Fourth Amendment analysis of reasonable expectations of privacy.

Background and question before the Court

According to Kent L. Richland, the case concerns text messages sent on a police department‑issued pager that is subject to an explicit no‑privacy policy.

According to Justice Sotomayor, the legal question is whether a government employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications under the Fourth Amendment.

What each side argues

Petitioners

According to Kent L. Richland, sergeant Quon had no reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages on his department‑issued pager because the department’s policy expressly prohibited privacy.

According to Mr. Richland, if Sergeant Quon loses, the other plaintiffs must also lose.

Respondents

According to Respondents (Mr. Katyal), according to Respondents (Mr. Katyal), a federal statute such as the Stored Communications Act does not affect the Fourth Amendment analysis of reasonable expectations of privacy.

What happened at oral argument

Dieter Dammeier presented argument on behalf of the respondents.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts concluded the oral argument by stating the case was submitted.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

The dispute illustrates how government‑issued device policies can shape Fourth Amendment privacy rights for employees.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • d2c66f7972bf51e06f8c-r1-92e1705c4c0b3a35.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.