This HTML5 document contains 224 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n25http://dbpedia.org/resource/Wikt:
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n15https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n16http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n28https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n23https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/
n21https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n19https://www.leagle.com/decision/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n17http://volokh.com/category/city-of-ontario-v-quon/
n10http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n22https://www.eff.org/cases/
n27http://epic.org/privacy/quon/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n6https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/746/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon
rdf:type
owl:Thing yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRobertsCourt yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases dbo:Case yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Abstraction100002137 wikidata:Q2334719 yago:Case107308889 yago:Happening107283608 yago:Event100029378 dbo:LegalCase dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:UnitOfWork
rdfs:label
City of Ontario v. Quon
rdfs:comment
Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
foaf:name
City of Ontario, California, et al., Petitioners v. Jeff Quon, et al.
foaf:depiction
n10:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg n10:SandraIkuta.jpg n10:Arch_Wireless_logo.png n10:Anthony_Kennedy_Official.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_Internet_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:Pagers dbc:Ontario,_California dbc:Search_and_seizure_case_law dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbc:Privacy_of_telecommunications dbc:2010_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_public_employment_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
27748420
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1057530997
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Character_(computing) dbr:Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy dbr:Harry_Pregerson dbr:American_Civil_Liberties_Union dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:F.3d dbr:Rum-running dbr:Expectation_of_privacy dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California dbr:Plurality_opinion dbr:Right_to_privacy dbr:Drug_interdiction dbr:Adam_Liptak dbr:SWAT dbr:Drug_test dbr:Editorial dbr:Labor_union dbr:Text_message dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:Fourth_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Subpoena dbr:Harry_Blackmun dbr:Stephen_G._Larson dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Frank_M._Hull dbr:Concurring_opinion dbr:Qualified_immunity dbr:Anna_Nicole_Smith dbc:United_States_Internet_case_law dbr:Katz_v._United_States dbr:Discovery_(law) dbc:Pagers dbr:Norm_(social) dbr:Majority_opinion dbr:Jury_trial dbr:Liberalism n16:Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg dbr:Summary_judgment dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:United_States_Customs_Service dbr:National_League_of_Cities dbr:Workplace_privacy dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Backup dbr:Antonin_Scalia n16:SandraIkuta.jpg dbc:Ontario,_California dbr:Public_Citizen dbr:Orin_Kerr dbr:Sandra_Day_O'Connor dbc:Search_and_seizure_case_law dbr:Sanitization_(classified_information) dbr:Dougherty_County,_Georgia dbc:United_States_Fourth_Amendment_case_law dbr:Probable_cause dbr:Email dbr:Certiorari dbr:John_Roberts dbr:Urinalysis dbr:Database dbr:League_of_California_Cities dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Western_District_of_Washington dbr:Internet dbr:Riverside,_California dbr:Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States dbr:Kim_McLane_Wardlaw dbr:Oral_argument dbr:Server_(computing) dbr:Sandra_Segal_Ikuta dbr:Blawg dbr:California_State_Association_of_Counties n16:Anthony_Kennedy_Official.jpg dbr:The_Volokh_Conspiracy dbr:Olmstead_v._United_States dbr:Pager dbr:Stored_Communications_Act dbr:Virginia_v._Moore dbr:Amicus_curiae dbr:F._Supp._2d dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court dbr:New_York_Intellectual_Property_Law_Association dbr:AFL-CIO dbr:Electronic_Frontier_Foundation dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit dbr:Los_Angeles_Times dbc:United_States_privacy_case_law dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Marshall_v._Marshall dbr:Invasion_of_privacy dbr:O'Connor_v._Ortega dbr:Police_car dbr:Ars_Technica dbr:Conservatism dbr:L._Ed._2d dbc:Privacy_of_telecommunications dbr:Malicious_prosecution dbr:Roberts_Court dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit dbr:National_School_Boards_Association dbr:Sexting dbr:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit dbr:The_Washington_Post dbr:Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center dbr:Connick_v._Myers dbr:Stephen_Breyer n25:excursus dbr:District_attorney dbr:Sonia_Sotomayor dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_560 dbr:Wiretapping dbr:Treasury_Employees_v._Von_Raab dbr:The_New_York_Times dbr:Alphanumeric_paging dbr:Sidearm_(weapon) dbr:Center_for_Democracy_and_Technology dbr:Memorandum dbr:Rutherford_Institute dbr:En_banc dbc:2010_in_United_States_case_law dbr:United_States_v._Payner dbr:Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement) n16:Arch_Wireless_logo.png dbr:Internet_Service_Provider dbr:Search_and_seizure dbr:First_impression_(law) dbc:United_States_public_employment_case_law dbr:Remand_(court_procedure) dbr:California_Public_Records_Act dbr:Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act dbr:Harvard_Law_Review dbr:Ontario,_California dbr:Ronald_B._Leighton dbr:Plaintiff dbr:The_George_Washington_University_Law_School dbr:Marc_Rotenberg
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n6: n15:08-1332 n17: n19:20091323554ef3d76911319 n19:20061561445fsupp2d111611462 n19:20081421529f3d89211341 n22:city-ontario-v-quon n27: n23:08-1332.pdf n21:08-1332.pdf
owl:sameAs
yago-res:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon freebase:m.0cc9h8y wikidata:Q7095006 n28:4sVzm
dbp:subsequent
None
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:US4thAmendment dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Short_description dbt:Ussc dbt:Reflist dbt:Quote
dbo:thumbnail
n10:Arch_Wireless_logo.png?width=300
dbp:docket
8
dbp:joinmajority
Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor; Scalia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:Fourth_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:oralargument
n21:08-1332.pdf
dbp:oyez
n15:08-1332
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
746
dbp:usvol
560
dbp:arguedate
0001-04-19
dbp:argueyear
2010
dbp:case
City of Ontario v. Quon,
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-17
dbp:decideyear
2010
dbp:fullname
City of Ontario, California, et al., Petitioners v. Jeff Quon, et al.
dbp:holding
Discovery of sexually explicit and otherwise personal text messages sent from police department-owned pager, resulting in disciplinary action against officer pager had been issued to, was incident to reasonable, work-related audit intended to assess efficacy of monthly character limit. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
dbp:justia
n6:
dbp:litigants
City of Ontario v. Quon
dbp:majority
Kennedy
dbp:otherSource
Supreme Court
dbp:otherUrl
n23:08-1332.pdf
dbo:abstract
Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Ontario police sergeant Jeff Quon, along with other officers and those they were exchanging messages with, had sued the city, their superiors and the pager service provider in federal court. They had alleged a violation of not only their constitutional rights but federal telecommunications privacy laws. Their defense was that a superior officer had promised the pager messages themselves would not be audited if the officers reimbursed the city for fees it incurred when they exceeded a monthly character limit. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion signed by seven of his fellow justices. It decided the case purely on the reasonableness of the pager audit, explicitly refusing to consider "far-reaching issues" it raised on the grounds that modern communications technology and its role in society was still evolving. He nevertheless discussed those issues at some length in explaining why the Court chose not to rule on them, in addition to responding, for argument's sake, more directly to issues raised by the respondents. John Paul Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion, as did Antonin Scalia, who would have used a different test he had proposed in an earlier case to reach the same result. Outside commentators mostly praised the justices for this display of restraint, but Scalia criticized it harshly in his concurrence, calling it vague. He considered his fellow justices in "disregard of duty" for their refusal to address the Fourth Amendment issues. A month after the court handed down its decision, an appellate court in Georgia similarly criticized it for "a marked lack of clarity" as it narrowed an earlier ruling to remove a finding that there was no expectation of privacy in the contents of email. An article in The New York Times later summarized this criticism, and its "faux unanimity", as emblematic of what some judges and lawyers have found an increasingly frustrating trend in Roberts Court opinions.
dbp:concurrence
Stevens Scalia
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon?oldid=1057530997&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
72515
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:City_of_Ontario_v._Quon