District Judge Larson begins his opinion in a recent case with an intriguing sentence:

What are the legal boundaries of an employee’s privacy in this interconnected, electroniccommunication age, one in which thoughts and ideas that would have been spoken personally and privately in ages past are now instantly text-messaged to friends and family via handheld, computer-assisted electronic devices?

The facts: A police department had a contract with Arch Wireless Operating Company, Inc. to provide its employees with pagers. Officers signed the department’s equipment use policy, which clarified that any messages sent on city-owned computer equipment could be accessed and reviewed without notice, and that they “should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.” But the department also had an unofficial policy of not auditing the use of the pagers. And in practical terms, the department could only obtain data from employee pagers with the cooperation of ArchWireless.

As the bills for the pagers increased, the department reversed its informal policy and began auditing some of its SWAT team members’ pager transcripts to determine to what extent overages were caused by personal use. Arch Wireless made the transcripts available. After reviewing them, the department determined that one of its employees had been using his pager for personal reasons, to transmit sexually explicit messages to his wife and girlfriend.

a. Can you articulate any privacy claims the employees might make?

b. Internet Assignment: Find out if making these messages accessible violated the federal Wiretap Act. Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., 145 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D.

Cal., 2006).