Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    City of City of Ontario vs. Quon: Fourth Amendment

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Look at the case of City of Ontario vs. Quon. Was Quon subject to an improper search and seizure? Do you agree with the ruling in the case? Include a summary of the case and relevant law in your analysis.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 3:19 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    See the attached file.

    City of Ontario vs. Quon

    Supreme Court vs. Ninth Circuit Conclusions on the Proper Scope of the Search
    The Supreme Court decides that it was not excessive that Quon's text messages were reviewed for two months, August and September. Quon was informed that his messaging, phone calls, and email were subject to scrutiny as an employee. Quon could reasonably expect that contents of his message would remain private but the Ontario Police Department did have the right to search.

    The Ninth Circuit Conclusion was that it was an invasion of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Legal Information Institute, 2012). The Ninth Circuit felt that the chief's motives were not determinable because he could have been less intrusive.

    The better approach would have been to request Quon to reveal what messages were personal vs. ...

    Solution Summary

    The solution examines the fourth amendment case for the City of City of Ontario versus Quon.