Voozh

%PDF-1.3 %%�� %%Page: 1 1 4 0 obj << /Length 5 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 13 Tf 100 Tz 88.1395 -8.4 Td 1.3 Tw 0 Tc (FOR PUBLICATION) Tj /F1 15 Tf 100 Tz -78.2395 -24 Td 1.5 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj 43.47 -16.2 Td (FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -53.37 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw (�) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (J) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ERILYN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( Q) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (PRIL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( F) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LORIO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; J) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EFF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Q) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TEVE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( T) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RUJILLO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 71.652 -13.2 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 10.848 -18 Td (v.) Tj -82.5 -18 Td (A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( O) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (PERATING) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 215.07 -10.2 Td 1.2 Tw (No. 07-55282) Tj -215.07 -3 Td (C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OMPANY) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, I) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NCORPORATED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Delaware corporation; C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ITY OF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 226.734 -1.8 Td 1.2 Tw (D.C. No.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -45.114 -7.9 Td 2 Tw (�) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -3.5 Td 1.2 Tw (O) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NTARIO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, a municipal corporation;) Tj 202.338 -1.8 Td (CV-03-00199-SGL) Tj -202.338 -11.4 Td (L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LOYD) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (CHARF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, individually and as) Tj 224.34 -6.6 Td (OPINION) Tj -224.34 -6.6 Td (Chief of Ontario Police) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Department; O) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NTARIO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OLICE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EPARTMENT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EBBIE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LENN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (individually and as a Sergeant of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (Ontario Police Department,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw (�) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -142.878 -26.5 Td 1.2 Tw (Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj 21.438 -13.3 Td (for the Central District of California) Tj -20.172 -13.3 Td (Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding) Tj 54.462 -26.4 Td (Argued and Submitted) Tj -43.086 -13.3 Td (February 6, 2008�Pasadena, California) Tj 49.482 -26.4 Td (Filed June 18, 2008) Tj -80.46 -26.4 Td (Before: Harry) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Pregerson and Kim) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (McLane) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Wardlaw,) Tj -8.37 -13.4 Td (Circuit) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Judges, and Ronald) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (B.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Leighton,*) Tj ( District) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Judge.) Tj 70.008 -26.4 Td (Opinion by Judge Wardlaw) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -72.044 -26.1 Td 1.32 Tw (*The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -66.15 m 183.8 -66.15 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -169.9 m 186.6 -74 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -282.8 m 186.6 -186.9 l s .9 w 0 -289.75 m 183.3 -289.75 l s .5 w 0 -487.35 m 300 -487.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 295 -664.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6997) Tj ET Q endstream endobj 5 0 obj 4351 endobj 3 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 4 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 2 2 12 0 obj << /Length 13 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -27.6 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (COUNSEL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.2 Td 3.42 Tw (Dieter C. Dammeier, Zahra Khoury, Lackie & Dammeier) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (APC, Upland, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td .61 Tw (Dimitrios C. Rinos, Rinos & Martin, LLP, Tustin, California;) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.44 Tw (Kent L. Richland, Kent J. Bullard, Greines, Martin, Stein &) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.38 Tw (Richland LLP, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.9 Tw (appellees City of Ontario, Ontario Police Department, and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Lloyd Scharf. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td .08 Tw (Bruce E. Disenhouse, Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs, Riverside,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (California, for defendant-appellee Debbie Glenn. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td 1.87 Tw (John H. Horwitz, Schaffer, Lax, McNaughton & Chen, Los) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.34 Tw (Angeles, California, for defendant-appellee Arch Wireless,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Inc.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -44.2 Td (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.2 Td (WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 3.95 Tw (This case arises from the Ontario Police Department's) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.17 Tw (review of text messages sent and received by Jeff Quon, a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.47 Tw (Sergeant and member of the City of Ontario's SWAT team.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (We must decide whether \(1\) ) Tj (Arch Wireless Operating Com-) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s .5 w 0 -262.75 m 300 -262.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7001) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 13 0 obj 2020 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 12 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 3 3 15 0 obj << /Length 16 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.11 Tw 0 Tc (pany Inc., the company with whom the City contracted for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (text messaging services, violated the Stored Communications) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (Act, 18 U.S.C. ��) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.03 Tw (2701-2711 \(1986\); and \(2\) whether the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (City, the Police Department, and Ontario Police Chief Lloyd) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (Scharf violated Quon's rights and the rights of those with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (whom he ) Tj (�texted) Tj (��Sergeant Steve Trujillo, Dispatcher April) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (Florio, and his wife Jerilyn Quon) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �under the Fourth Amend-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (ment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (1 of the California Constitution. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.07 -26 Td (I.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (FACTUAL BACKGROUND) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -53.07 -26 Td 3 Tw (On October 24, 2001, Arch Wireless \() Tj (�Arch Wireless) Tj (�\)) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (contracted to provide wireless text-messaging services for the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (City of Ontario. The City received twenty two-way alphanu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .82 Tw (meric pagers, which it distributed to its employees, including) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.11 Tw (Ontario Police Department \() Tj (�OPD) Tj (� or ) Tj (�Department) Tj (�\) Ser-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (geants Quon and Trujillo, in late 2001 or early 2002. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 3.83 Tw (According to Steven Niekamp, Director of Information) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Technology for Arch Wireless: ) Tj 22 -26 Td 2.04 Tw (A text message originating from an Arch Wireless) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (two-way alphanumeric text-messaging pager is sent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (to another two-way text-messaging pager as follows:) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (The message leaves the originating pager via a radio) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 10.4 Tw (frequency transmission. That transmission is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.81 Tw (received by any one of many receiving stations,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (which are owned by Arch Wireless. Depending on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (the location of the receiving station, the message is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.24 Tw (then entered into the Arch Wireless computer net-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (work either by wire transmission or via satellite by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (another radio frequency transmission. Once in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.5 Tw (Arch Wireless computer network, the message is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (sent to the Arch Wireless computer server. Once in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (the server, a copy of the message is archived. The) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -12 -25.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (Doreen Klein, a plaintiff below, has not filed an appeal. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -477.75 m 300 -477.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7002) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 16 0 obj 3488 endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 15 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 4 4 19 0 obj << /Length 20 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 2.52 Tw 0 Tc (message is also stored in the server system, for a) Tj 0 -13 Td .9 Tw (period of up to 72 hours, until the recipient pager is) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.12 Tw (ready to receive delivery of the text message. The) Tj 0 -13 Td .41 Tw (recipient pager is ready to receive delivery of a mes-) Tj 0 -13 Td .27 Tw (sage when it is both activated and located in an Arch) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.77 Tw (Wireless service area. Once the recipient pager is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (able to receive delivery of the text message, the Arch) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.9 Tw (Wireless server retrieves the stored message and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (sends it, via wire or radio frequency transmission, to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (the transmitting station closest to the recipient pager.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.38 Tw (The transmitting stations are owed [sic] by Arch) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (Wireless. The message is then sent from the trans-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (mitting station, via a radio frequency transmission,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.2 Tw (to the recipient pager where it can be read by the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (user of the recipient pager. ) Tj -10 -26 Td 1.25 Tw (The City had no official policy directed to text-messaging) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.72 Tw (by use of the pagers. However, the City did have a general) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (�Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy) Tj (� \(the ) Tj (�Policy) Tj (�\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (applicable to all employees. The Policy stated that ) Tj (�[t]he use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (of City-owned computers and all associated equipment, soft-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (ware, programs, networks, Internet, e-mail and other systems) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (operating on these computers is limited to City of Ontario) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (related business. The use of these tools for personal benefit is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .95 Tw (a significant violation of City of Ontario Policy.) Tj (� The Policy) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (also provided:) Tj 22 -26 Td 2.28 Tw (C.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 2.28 Tw (Access to all sites on the Internet is recorded) Tj 23 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (and will be periodically reviewed by the City.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (The City of Ontario reserves the right to moni-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (tor and log all network activity including e-mail) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (and Internet use, with or without notice. Users) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (should have no expectation of privacy or confi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (dentiality when using these resources. ) Tj -23 -26 Td 1.12 Tw (D.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.12 Tw (Access to the Internet and the e-mail system is) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 23.6 -13.1 Td 6.1 Tw (not ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (confidential; and information produced) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (either in hard copy or in electronic form is con-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7003) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 20 0 obj 3324 endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 19 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 5 5 22 0 obj << /Length 23 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 45.6 -8.4 Td 2.4 Tw 0 Tc (sidered City property. As such, these systems) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.24 Tw (should not be used for personal or confidential) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.68 Tw (communications. Deletion of e-mail or other) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.4 Tw (electronic information may not fully delete the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (information from the system. ) Tj -23.6 -26 Td 2.06 Tw (E.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 2.06 Tw (The use of inappropriate, derogatory, obscene,) Tj 22.3 -13 Td 2.92 Tw (suggestive, defamatory, or harassing language) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (in the e-mail system will not be tolerated. ) Tj -32.3 -26 Td 2.18 Tw (In 2000, before the City acquired the pagers, both Quon) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.38 Tw (and Trujillo had signed an ) Tj (�Employee Acknowledgment,) Tj (�) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (which borrowed language from the general Policy, indicating) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (that they had ) Tj (�read and fully understand the City of Ontario's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail policy.) Tj (� The Employee) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (Acknowledgment, among other things, states that ) Tj (�[t]he City) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (of Ontario reserves the right to monitor and log all network) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.78 Tw (activity including e-mail and Internet use, with or without) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (notice,� and that ) Tj (�[u]sers should have no expectation of pri-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.42 Tw (vacy or confidentiality when using these resources.) Tj (� Two) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (years later, on April 18, 2002, Quon attended a meeting dur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.96 Tw (ing which Lieutenant Steve Duke, a Commander with the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 11.4 Tw (Ontario Police Department's Administration Bureau,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (informed all present that the pager messages ) Tj (�were considered) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.77 Tw (e-mail, and that those messages would fall under the City's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .95 Tw (policy as public information and eligible for auditing.) Tj (� Quon) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (�vaguely recalled attending) Tj (� this meeting, but did not recall) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (Lieutenant Duke stating at the meeting that use of the pagers) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (was governed by the City's Policy. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .82 Tw (Although the City had no official policy expressly govern-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (ing use of the pagers, the City did have an informal policy) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.53 Tw (governing their use. Under the City's contract with Arch) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.42 Tw (Wireless, each pager was allotted 25,000 characters, after) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (which the City was required to pay overage charges. Lieuten-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.15 Tw (ant Duke ) Tj (�was in charge of the purchasing contract) Tj (� and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (responsible for procuring payment for overages. He stated) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.85 Tw (that ) Tj (�[t]he practice was, if there was overage, that the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7004) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 23 0 obj 3440 endobj 21 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 22 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 6 6 25 0 obj << /Length 26 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.72 Tw 0 Tc (employee would pay for the overage that the City had. . . .) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.92 Tw ([W]e would usually call the employee and say, `Hey, look,) Tj 0 -13 Td .06 Tw (you're over X amount of characters. It comes out to X amount) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.47 Tw (of dollars. Can you write me a check for your overage[?]') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.47 Tw (�) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.74 Tw (The informal policy governing use of the pagers came to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.42 Tw (light during the Internal Affairs investigation, which took) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (place after Lieutenant Duke grew weary of his role as bill col-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4 Tw (lector. In a July 2, 2003 memorandum entitled ) Tj (�Internal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (Affairs Investigation of Jeffery Quon,) Tj (� \(the ) Tj (�McMahon Mem-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (orandum�\) OPD Sergeant Patrick McMahon wrote that upon) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (interviewing Lieutenant Duke, he learned that early on) Tj 22 -26 Td 2.9 Tw (Lieutenant Duke went to Sergeant Quon and told) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (him the City issued two-way pagers were considered) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (e-mail and could be audited. He told Sergeant Quon) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (it was not his intent to audit employee's [sic] text) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (messages to see if the overage is due to work related) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.05 Tw (transmissions. He advised Sergeant Quon he could) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (reimburse the City for the overage so he would not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.57 Tw (have to audit the transmission and see how many) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.54 Tw (messages were non-work related. Lieutenant Duke) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (told Sergeant Quon he is doing this because if any-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (body wished to challenge their overage, he could) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (audit the text transmissions to verify how many were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.83 Tw (non-work related. Lieutenant Duke added the text) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (messages were considered public records and could) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (be audited at any time. ) Tj -22 -26 Td 1.28 Tw (For the most part, Lieutenant Duke agreed with McMahon's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (characterization of what he said during his interview. Later,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .9 Tw (however, during his deposition, Lieutenant Duke recalled the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (interaction as follows: ) Tj 22 -26 Td .05 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj .05 Tw (I think what I told Quon was that he had to pay for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (his overage, that I did not want to determine if the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (overage was personal or business unless they wanted) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (me to, because if they said, ) Tj (�It's all business, I'm not) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7005) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 26 0 obj 3233 endobj 24 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 25 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 7 7 28 0 obj << /Length 29 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 1.5 Tw 0 Tc (paying for it,) Tj (� then I would do an audit to confirm) Tj 0 -13 Td .76 Tw (that. And I didn't want to get into the bill collecting) Tj 0 -13 Td .52 Tw (thing, so he needed to pay for his personal messages) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.58 Tw (so we didn't�pay for the overage so we didn't do) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.43 Tw (the audit. And he needed to cut down on his trans-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (missions. ) Tj -22 -26 Td 3.71 Tw (According to the McMahon Memorandum, Quon remem-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.62 Tw (bered the interaction differently. When asked ) Tj (�if he ever) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.18 Tw (recalled a discussion with Lieutenant Duke that if his text-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (pager went over, his messages would be audited . . . Sergeant) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (Quon said, `No. In fact he [Lieutenant Duke] said the other,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (if you don't want us to read it, pay the overage fee.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (� ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1 Tw (Quon went over the monthly character limit ) Tj (�three or four) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (times) Tj (� and paid the City for the overages. Each time, ) Tj (�Lieu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.73 Tw (tenant Duke would come and tell [him] that [he] owed X) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (amount of dollars because [he] went over [his] allotted char-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (acters.� Each of those times, Quon paid the City for the over-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ages. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.21 Tw (In August 2002, Quon and another officer again exceeded) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.07 Tw (the 25,000 character limit. Lieutenant Duke then let it be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (known at a meeting that he was ) Tj (�tired of being a bill collector) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.55 Tw (with guys going over the allotted amount of characters on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (their text pagers.) Tj (� In response, Chief Scharf ordered Lieuten-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (ant Duke to ) Tj (�request the transcripts of those pagers for audit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.04 Tw (ing purposes.) Tj (� Chief Scharf asked Lieutenant Duke ) Tj (�to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.62 Tw (determine if the messages were exclusively work related,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (thereby requiring an increase in the number of characters offi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (cers were permitted, which had occurred in the past, or if they) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (were using the pagers for personal matters. One of the officers) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (whose transcripts [he] requested was plaintiff Jeff Quon.) Tj (� ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.7 Tw (City officials were not able to access the text messages) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 4.28 Tw (themselves. Instead, the City e-mailed Jackie Deavers, a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (major account support specialist for Arch Wireless, requesting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the transcripts. According to Deavers, ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7006) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 29 0 obj 3331 endobj 27 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 28 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 8 8 32 0 obj << /Length 33 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 4.24 Tw 0 Tc (I checked the phone numbers on the transcripts) Tj 0 -13 Td .16 Tw (against the e-mail that I had gotten, and I looked into) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.91 Tw (the system to make sure they were actually pagers) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (that belonged to the City of Ontario, and they were.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.93 Tw (So I took the transcripts and put them in a manila) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (envelope [and brought them to the City]. ) Tj -22 -26 Td 3 Tw (Deavers stated that she did not determine whether private) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (messages were being released, though she acknowledged that,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (upon reviewing approximately four lines of the transcript, she) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (had realized that the messages were sexually explicit. She also) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (stated that she would only deliver messages to the ) Tj (�contact) Tj (�) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (on the account, and that she would not deliver messages to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (�user) Tj (� unless he was also the contact on the account. In this) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (case, the ) Tj (�contact) Tj (� was the City. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .95 Tw (After receiving the transcripts, Lieutenant Duke conducted) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (an initial audit and reported the results to Chief Scharf. Subse-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.66 Tw (quently, Chief Scharf and Quon's supervisor, Lieutenant) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (Tony Del Rio, reviewed the transcripts themselves. Then, in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.87 Tw (October 2002, Chief Scharf referred the matter to internal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (affairs ) Tj (�to determine if someone was wasting . . . City time) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (not doing work when they should be.) Tj (� Sergeant McMahon,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (who conducted this investigation on behalf of Internal Affairs,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (enlisted the help of Sergeant Glenn, also a member of Internal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (Affairs. Sergeant McMahon released the McMahon Memo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (randum on July 2, 2003. According to the Memorandum, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.18 Tw (transcripts revealed that Quon ) Tj (�had exceeded his monthly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.17 Tw (allotted characters by 15,158 characters,) Tj (� and that many of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (these messages were personal in nature and were often sexu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (ally explicit. These messages were directed to and received) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (from, among others, the other Appellants. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 49.404 -26 Td (II.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -37.404 -26 Td 3.75 Tw (On May 6, 2003, Appellants filed a Second Amended) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .13 Tw (Complaint in the District Court for the Central District of Cal-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (ifornia alleging, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (inter alia) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, violations of the Stored Communi-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7007) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 33 0 obj 3427 endobj 31 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 32 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 9 9 35 0 obj << /Length 36 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.03 Tw 0 Tc (cations Act \() Tj (�SCA) Tj (�\) and the Fourth Amendment. After the) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 3.57 Tw (district court dismissed one of Appellants' claims against) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.25 Tw (Arch Wireless pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .87 Tw (12\(b\)\(6\), all parties filed numerous rounds of summary judg-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.25 Tw (ment motions. On August 15, 2006, the district court denied) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .53 Tw (Appellants' summary judgment motion in full, and granted in) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 5.85 Tw (part and denied in part Appellees' summary judgment) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (motions. ) Tj 12 -24.6 Td 3.38 Tw (Appellants appeal the district court's holding that Arch) Tj -12 -12.4 Td 1.5 Tw (Wireless did not violate the SCA, 18 U.S.C. ��) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.5 Tw (2701-2711.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.4 Td 2.41 Tw (The district court found that Arch Wireless was a ) Tj (�remote) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 3.77 Tw (computing service) Tj (� under �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.77 Tw (2702\(a\), and that it therefore) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2 Tw (committed no harm when it released the text-message tran-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (scripts to its ) Tj (�subscriber,) Tj (� the City. ) Tj 12 -24.6 Td 0 Tw (Appellants also appeal the district court's resolution of their) Tj -12 -12.4 Td 1.33 Tw (claims against the City, the Department, Scharf, and Glenn.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.4 Td 2.25 Tw (Appellants argue that the City, the Department, and Scharf) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 0 Tw (violated Appellants' Fourth Amendment rights to be free from) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 5.52 Tw (unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to 42 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .36 Tw (�) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .36 Tw (1983, and that the City, Department, Scharf, and Glenn vio-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .25 Tw (lated Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 5.12 Tw (protects a citizen's right to privacy.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The district court) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24.6 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .02 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Appellants fail to raise on appeal their claims against Arch Wireless for) Tj -10 -10.5 Td 2.34 Tw (violations of California Penal Code section 629.86 and their state-law) Tj 0 -10.5 Td .25 Tw (invasion of privacy claim under Article I, Section 1 of the California Con-) Tj 0 -10.5 Td 0 Tw (stitution. Therefore, they have waived those claims.) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( See Blanford v. Sacra-) Tj 0 -10.5 Td 1 Tw (mento County) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 406 F.3d 1110, 1114 n.8 \(9th Cir. 2005\). ) Tj 10 -13.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.07 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Appellants fail to raise on appeal their claims against the City, the) Tj -10 -10.5 Td 1.14 Tw (Department, Scharf, and Glenn for violations of the Stored Communica-) Tj 0 -10.5 Td .68 Tw (tions Act and California Penal Code section 629.86. Jerilyn Quon fails to) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .28 Tw (address on appeal her claim for defamation and interference with prospec-) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .68 Tw (tive business advantage; nor does Florio address her claim that seizure of) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .31 Tw (her personal pager and cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment. There-) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 2.33 Tw (fore, Appellants have waived those claims. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Blanford) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 406 F.3d at) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (1114.) Tj ( ) Tj 10 -13.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.45 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (�All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable) Tj -10 -10.6 Td .08 Tw (rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.91 Tw (possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety,) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (happiness, and privacy.) Tj (� C) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (AL) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw (. C) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (ONST) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw (. art. I, �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (1. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -304.35 m 300 -304.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7008) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 36 0 obj 4733 endobj 34 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 35 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 10 10 38 0 obj << /Length 39 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.04 Tw 0 Tc (addressed only the Fourth Amendment claim.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Relying on) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -14.3 Td 1.47 Tw (O'Connor v. Ortega) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 480 U.S. 709, 715, 725-26 \(1987\), the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.57 Tw (district court determined that to prove a Fourth Amendment) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.44 Tw (violation, the plaintiff must show that he had a reasonable) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .7 Tw (expectation of privacy in his text messages, and that the gov-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.58 Tw (ernment's search or seizure was unreasonable under the cir-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .4 Tw (cumstances. The district court held that, in light of Lieutenant) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .75 Tw (Duke's informal policy that he would not audit a pager if the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.12 Tw (user paid the overage charges, Appellants had a reasonable) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.8 Tw (expectation of privacy in their text messages as a matter of) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.58 Tw (law. Regarding the reasonableness of the search, the district) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .33 Tw (court found that whether Chief Scharf's intent was to uncover) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .44 Tw (misconduct or to determine the efficacy of the 25,000 charac-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .25 Tw (ter limit was a genuine issue of material fact. If it was the for-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.8 Tw (mer, the search was unreasonable; if it was the latter, the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .78 Tw (search was reasonable. Concluding that Chief Scharf was not) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 3.75 Tw (entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .63 Tw (claim, and that the City and the Department were not entitled) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .61 Tw (to statutory immunity on the California constitutional privacy) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .63 Tw (claim, the district court held a jury trial on the single issue of) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 3.53 Tw (Chief Scharf's intent. The jury found that Chief Scharf's) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.44 Tw (intent was to determine the efficacy of the character limit.) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2.46 Tw (Therefore, all defendants were absolved of liability for the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.2 Tw (search. ) Tj 12 -28.4 Td .7 Tw (On December 7, 2006, Appellants filed a motion to amend) Tj -12 -14.2 Td .4 Tw (or alter the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proce-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .51 Tw (dure 59\(e\), and a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59\(a\).) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2.12 Tw (The district court denied each of these motions. Appellants) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.2 Tw (timely appeal. ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -28 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.74 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The district court limited its discussion to the Fourth Amendment) Tj -10 -12.1 Td 1.73 Tw (because ) Tj (�the arguments lodged by the governmental defendants against) Tj 0 -12.1 Td .72 Tw (plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claim and state constitutional claim are the) Tj 0 -12.1 Td .78 Tw (same as those pressed against plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim . . . .) Tj (�) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -434.95 m 300 -434.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7009) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 39 0 obj 3585 endobj 37 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 38 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 11 11 41 0 obj << /Length 42 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 3.768 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (III.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 8.232 -26.7 Td 2.53 Tw (The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (��) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .66 Tw (1331 and 1343. We have jurisdiction over final judgments) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (of the district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (1291. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .41 Tw (We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .83 Tw (novo. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bagdadi v. Nazar) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 \(9th Cir. 1996\).) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .22 Tw (In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we ) Tj (�must deter-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .83 Tw (mine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.42 Tw (nonmoving party, whether genuine issues of material fact) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (exist and whether the district court correctly applied the rele-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (vant substantive law.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 99.162 -26.7 Td (IV.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (DISCUSSION) Tj -99.162 -26.7 Td (A.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Stored Communications Act ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 3.08 Tw ([1]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Congress passed the Stored Communications Act in) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.28 Tw (1986 as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .2 Tw (The SCA was enacted because the advent of the Internet pres-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3 Tw (ented a host of potential privacy breaches that the Fourth) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.74 Tw (Amendment does not address. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Orin S. Kerr, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (A User's) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.12 Tw (Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a Legislator's) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .63 Tw (Guide to Amending It) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 72 G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .62 Tw (EO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts .63 Tw (. W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .62 Tw (ASH) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts .63 Tw (. L. R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .62 Tw (EV) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts .63 Tw (. 1208, 1209-13) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.28 Tw (\(2004\). Generally, the SCA prevents ) Tj (�providers) Tj (� of commu-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.21 Tw (nication services from divulging private communications to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.42 Tw (certain entities and/or individuals. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 1213. Appellants) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.52 Tw (challenge the district court's finding that Arch Wireless is a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .75 Tw (�remote computing service) Tj (� \() Tj (�RCS) Tj (�\) as opposed to an ) Tj (�elec-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.16 Tw (tronic communication service) Tj (� \() Tj (�ECS) Tj (�\) under the SCA,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.14 Tw (��) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.14 Tw (2701-2711. The district court correctly concluded that if) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Arch Wireless is an ECS, it is liable as a matter of law, and) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .15 Tw (that if it is an RCS, it is not liable. However, we disagree with) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.11 Tw (the district court that Arch Wireless acted as an RCS for the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .16 Tw (City. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Arch Wireless) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (was error. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7010) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 42 0 obj 3834 endobj 40 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 41 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 12 12 44 0 obj << /Length 45 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .33 Tw 0 Tc ([2]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Section 2702 of the SCA governs liability for both ECS) Tj -12 -13 Td .41 Tw (and RCS providers. 18 U.S.C. �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .41 Tw (2702\(a\)\(1\)-\(2\). The nature of) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.08 Tw (the services Arch Wireless offered to the City determines) Tj 0 -13 Td .18 Tw (whether Arch Wireless is an ECS or an RCS. As the Niekamp) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.21 Tw (Declaration makes clear, Arch Wireless provided to the City) Tj 0 -13 Td .71 Tw (a service whereby it would facilitate communication between) Tj 0 -13 Td .28 Tw (two pagers�) Tj (�text messaging) Tj (� over radio frequencies. As part) Tj 0 -13 Td .37 Tw (of that service, Arch Wireless archived a copy of the message) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.1 Tw (on its server. When Arch Wireless released to the City the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (transcripts of Appellants' messages, Arch Wireless potentially) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .91 Tw (ran afoul of the SCA. This is because both an ECS and RCS) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (can release private information to, or with the lawful consent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (of, ) Tj (�an addressee or intended recipient of such communica-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.78 Tw (tion,� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.78 Tw (2702\(b\)\(1\), \(b\)\(3\), whereas only an RCS can) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (release such information ) Tj (�with the lawful consent of . . . the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (subscriber.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.5 Tw (2702\(b\)\(3\). It is undisputed that the City) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (was not an ) Tj (�addressee or intended recipient,) Tj (� and that the City) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (was a ) Tj (�subscriber.) Tj (� ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.8 Tw ([3]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The SCA defines an ECS as ) Tj (�any service which pro-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (vides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (electronic communications.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .11 Tw (2510\(15\). The SCA prohib-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.84 Tw (its an ECS from ) Tj (�knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (entity the contents of a communication while in electronic) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (storage by that service,) Tj (� unless, among other exceptions not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (relevant to this appeal, that person or entity is ) Tj (�an addressee) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 10.11 Tw (or intended recipient of such communication.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .72 Tw (�) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .72 Tw (2702\(a\)\(1\), \(b\)\(1\), \(b\)\(3\). ) Tj (�Electronic storage) Tj (� is defined as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (�\(A\) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or elec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (tronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (thereof; and \(B\) any storage of such communication by an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (electronic communication service for purposes of backup pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tection of such communication.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2510\(17\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td .87 Tw (An RCS is defined as ) Tj (�the provision to the public of com-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (puter storage or processing services by means of an electronic) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .46 Tw (communications system.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .46 Tw (2711\(2\). Electronic communi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (cation system�which is simply the means by which an RCS) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7011) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 45 0 obj 4243 endobj 43 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 44 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 13 13 47 0 obj << /Length 48 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.16 Tw 0 Tc (provides computer storage or processing services and has no) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.16 Tw (bearing on how we interpret the meaning of ) Tj (�RCS) Tj (��is) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.24 Tw (defined as ) Tj (�any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical or) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .75 Tw (photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or elec-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .67 Tw (tronic communications, and any computer facilities or related) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.33 Tw (electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such com-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.47 Tw (munications.� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.47 Tw (2510\(14\). The SCA prohibits an RCS) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (from ) Tj (�knowingly divulg[ing] to any person or entity the con-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .25 Tw (tents of any communication which is carried or maintained on) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.67 Tw (that service.) Tj (� Unlike an ECS, an RCS may release the con-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.27 Tw (tents of a communication with the lawful consent of a ) Tj (�sub-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (scriber.� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2702\(a\)\(2\), \(b\)\(3\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.7 Td .54 Tw ([4]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We turn to the plain language of the SCA, including its) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .73 Tw (common-sense definitions, to properly categorize Arch Wire-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.17 Tw (less. An ECS is defined as ) Tj (�any service which provides to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.14 Tw (users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.51 Tw (communications.) Tj (� 18 U.S.C. �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.51 Tw (2510\(15\). On its face, this) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.67 Tw (describes the text-messaging pager services that Arch Wire-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.52 Tw (less provided. Arch Wireless provided a ) Tj (�service) Tj (� that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .08 Tw (enabled Quon and the other Appellants to ) Tj (�send or receive . . .) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .71 Tw (electronic communications,) Tj (� i.e., text messages. Contrast that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.17 Tw (definition with that for an RCS, which ) Tj (�means the provision) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.88 Tw (to the public of computer storage or processing services by) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 8.11 Tw (means of an electronic communications system.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.66 Tw (�) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.66 Tw (2711\(2\). Arch Wireless did not provide to the City ) Tj (�com-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.96 Tw (puter storage) Tj (�; nor did it provide ) Tj (�processing services.) Tj (� By) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.04 Tw (archiving the text messages on its server, Arch Wireless cer-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.85 Tw (tainly was ) Tj (�storing) Tj (� the messages. However, Congress con-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.07 Tw (templated this exact function could be performed by an ECS) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.58 Tw (as well, stating that an ECS would provide \(A\) temporary) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.25 Tw (storage incidental to the communication; and \(B\) storage for) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (backup protection. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2510\(17\). ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .66 Tw (This reading of the SCA is supported by its legislative his-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .44 Tw (tory. The Senate Report identifies two main services that pro-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.08 Tw (viders performed in 1986: \(1\) data communication; and \(2\)) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7012) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 48 0 obj 3986 endobj 46 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 47 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 14 14 51 0 obj << /Length 52 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.75 Tw 0 Tc (data storage and processing. First, the report describes the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (means of communication of information:) Tj 22 -26 Td 4 Tw ([W]e have large-scale electronic mail operations,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.9 Tw (computer-to-computer data transmissions, cellular) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (and cordless telephones, paging devices, and video) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (teleconferencing . . . . [M]any different companies,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.87 Tw (not just common carriers, offer a wide variety of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (telephone and other communications services. ) Tj -22 -26 Td (S. R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EP) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (. N) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (O) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (. 99-541, at 2-3 \(1986\). Second, ) Tj 22 -26 Td 1.45 Tw ([t]he Committee also recognizes that computers are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (used extensively today for the storage and process-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (ing of information. With the advent of computerized) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.94 Tw (recordkeeping systems, Americans have lost the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (ability to lock away a great deal of personal and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.46 Tw (business information. For example, physicians and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (hospitals maintain medical files in offsite data banks,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.71 Tw (businesses of all sizes transmit their records to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (remote computers to obtain sophisticated data pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (cessing services. These services as well as the pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.48 Tw (viders of electronic mail create electronic copies of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.6 Tw (private correspondence for later reference. This) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (information is processed for the benefit of the user) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.37 Tw (but often it is maintained for approximately 3) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (months to ensure system integrity. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26 Td .58 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 3. Under the heading ) Tj (�Remote Computer Services,) Tj (� the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.82 Tw (Report further clarifies that term refers to the processing or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (storage of data by an off-site third party: ) Tj 22 -26 Td .21 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj .21 Tw (In the age of rapid computerization, a basic choice) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (has faced the users of computer technology. That is,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (whether to process data inhouse on the user's own) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (computer or on someone else's equipment. Over the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.2 Tw (years, remote computer service companies have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.6 Tw (developed to provide sophisticated and convenient) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7013) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 52 0 obj 3227 endobj 50 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 51 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 15 15 54 0 obj << /Length 55 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 4.34 Tw 0 Tc (computing services to subscribers and customers) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.04 Tw (from remote facilities. Today businesses of all sizes) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.12 Tw (�hospitals, banks and many others�use remote) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.2 Tw (computing services for computer processing. This) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.33 Tw (processing can be done with the customer or sub-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.57 Tw (scriber using the facilities of the remote computing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (service in essentially a time-sharing arrangement, or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (it can be accomplished by the service provider on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.51 Tw (basis of information supplied by the subscriber or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.05 Tw (customer. Data is most often transmitted between) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (these services and their customers by means of elec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tronic communications. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26 Td (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 10-11. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .03 Tw (In the Senate Report, Congress made clear what it meant by) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (�storage and processing of information.) Tj (� It provided the fol-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (lowing example of storage: ) Tj (�physicians and hospitals main-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (tain medical files in offsite data banks.) Tj (� Congress appeared to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (view ) Tj (�storage) Tj (� as a virtual filing cabinet, which is not the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.21 Tw (function Arch Wireless contracted to provide here. The Sen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (ate Report also provided an example of ) Tj (�processing of infor-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.33 Tw (mation�: ) Tj (�businesses of all sizes transmit their records to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .61 Tw (remote computers to obtain sophisticated data processing ser-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (vices.� In light of the Report's elaboration upon what Con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (gress intended by the term ) Tj (�Remote Computer Services,) Tj (� it is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (clear that, before the advent of advanced computer processing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (programs such as Microsoft Excel, businesses had to farm out) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (sophisticated processing to a service that would process the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.33 Tw (information. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kerr, 72 G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.3 Tw (EO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.33 Tw (. W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.3 Tw (ASH) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.33 Tw (. L. R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 2.3 Tw (EV) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 2.33 Tw (. at 1213-14.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.08 Tw (Neither of these examples describes the service that Arch) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Wireless provided to the City. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .93 Tw ([5]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Any lingering doubt that Arch Wireless is an ECS that) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.58 Tw (retained messages in electronic storage is disposed of by) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (Theofel v. Farey-Jones) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 359 F.3d 1066, 1070 \(9th Cir. 2004\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Theofel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we held that a provider of e-mail services, undis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (putedly an ECS, stored e-mails on its servers for backup pro-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7014) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 55 0 obj 3783 endobj 53 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 54 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 16 16 57 0 obj << /Length 58 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.21 Tw 0 Tc (tection. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1075. NetGate was the plaintiffs' Internet) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.52 Tw (Service Provider \() Tj (�ISP) Tj (�\). Pursuant to a subpoena, NetGate) Tj 0 -13 Td .62 Tw (turned over plaintiffs' e-mail messages to the defendants. We) Tj 0 -13 Td 5.94 Tw (concluded that plaintiffs' e-mail messages�which were) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.17 Tw (stored on NetGate's server after delivery to the recipient�) Tj 0 -13 Td .76 Tw (were ) Tj (�stored `for purposes of backup protection' . . . . within) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.53 Tw (the ordinary meaning of those terms.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(citation omitted\).) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.5 Tw ([6]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The service provided by NetGate is closely analogous) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.57 Tw (to Arch Wireless's storage of Appellants' messages. Much) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (like Arch Wireless, NetGate served as a conduit for the trans-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5 Tw (mission of electronic communications from one user to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (another, and stored those communications ) Tj (�as a `backup' for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (the user.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Although it is not clear for whom Arch Wireless) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.2 Tw (�archived) Tj (� the text messages�presumably for the user or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.33 Tw (Arch Wireless itself�it is clear that the messages were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (archived for ) Tj (�backup protection,) Tj (� just as they were in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Theofel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (Accordingly, Arch Wireless is more appropriately categorized) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (as an ECS than an RCS. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.07 Tw (Arch Wireless contends that our analysis in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Theofel ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (of the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (definition of ) Tj (�backup protection) Tj (� supports its position. There,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (we noted that ) Tj (�[w]here the underlying message has expired in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (the normal course, any copy is no longer performing any) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (backup function. An ISP that kept permanent copies of tem-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (porary messages could not fairly be described as `backing up') Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (those messages.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1070. Thus, the argument goes, Arch) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (Wireless's permanent retention of the Appellants' text mes-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.36 Tw (sages could not have been for backup purposes; instead, it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (must have been for storage purposes, which would require us) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .72 Tw (to classify Arch Wireless as an RCS. This reading is not per-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (suasive. First, there is no indication in the record that Arch) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (Wireless retained a permanent copy of the text-messages or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (stored them for the benefit of the City; instead, the Niekamp) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (Declaration simply states that copies of the messages are ) Tj (�ar-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.38 Tw (chived� on Arch Wireless's server. More importantly, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Theo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (fel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s holding�that the e-mail messages stored on NetGate's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (server after delivery were for ) Tj (�backup protection,) Tj (� and that) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7015) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 58 0 obj 4036 endobj 56 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 57 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 17 17 60 0 obj << /Length 61 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.55 Tw 0 Tc (NetGate was undisputedly an ECS�forecloses Arch Wire-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (less's position. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.67 Tw ([7]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We hold that Arch Wireless provided an ) Tj (�electronic) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.7 Tw (communication service) Tj (� to the City. The parties do not dis-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.5 Tw (pute that Arch Wireless acted ) Tj (�knowingly) Tj (� when it released) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.21 Tw (the transcripts to the City. When Arch Wireless knowingly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (turned over the text-messaging transcripts to the City, which) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (was a ) Tj (�subscriber,) Tj (� not ) Tj (�an addressee or intended recipient of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.18 Tw (such communication,) Tj (� it violated the SCA, 18 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (�) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.28 Tw (2702\(a\)\(1\). Accordingly, judgment in Appellants' favor on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (their claims against Arch Wireless is appropriate as a matter) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (of law, and we remand to the district court for proceedings) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (consistent with this holding. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26 Td (B.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Fourth Amendment) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2 Tw (Appellants assert that they are entitled to summary judg-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (ment on their Fourth Amendment claim against the City, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (Department, and Scharf, and on their California constitutional) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (privacy claim against the City, the Department, Scharf, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (Glenn. Specifically, Appellants agree with the district court's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (conclusion that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.52 Tw (in the text messages. However, they argue that the issue) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (regarding Chief Scharf's intent in authorizing the search never) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (should have gone to trial because the search was unreasonable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (as a matter of law. We agree. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .84 Tw ([8]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj (�The `privacy' protected by [Article I, Section 1 of the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.18 Tw (California Constitution] is no broader in the area of search) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.25 Tw (and seizure than the `privacy' protected by the Fourth) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (Amendment . . . .) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Ath. Ass'n) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 7 Cal.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.66 Tw (4th 1, 30 n.9 \(1994\). Accordingly, our analysis proceeds) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (tion. The Fourth Amendment protects the ) Tj (�right of the people) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.15 Tw (to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.2 Tw (against unreasonable searches and seizures.) Tj (� U.S. C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 4.15 Tw (ONST) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 4.2 Tw (.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.16 Tw (amend. IV. ) Tj (�[T]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7016) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 61 0 obj 3639 endobj 59 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 60 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 18 18 63 0 obj << /Length 64 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (reasonableness.� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Kriesel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 508 F.3d 941, 947) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (\(9th Cir. 2007\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Samson v. California) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 126 S.Ct. 2193,) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.47 Tw (2201 n.4 \(2006\)\). Under the ) Tj (�general Fourth Amendment) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.62 Tw (approach,� we examine ) Tj (�the totality of the circumstances to) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.67 Tw (determine whether a search is reasonable.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (�The reason-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.77 Tw (ableness of a search is determined by assessing, on the one) Tj 0 -13 Td .3 Tw (hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's pri-) Tj 0 -13 Td .07 Tw (vacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6 Tw (promotion of legitimate governmental interests.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (States v. Knights) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 \(2001\) \(internal quo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tation marks omitted\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 2.81 Tw ([9]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj (�Searches and seizures by government employers or) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (supervisors of the private property of their employees . . . are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 7.51 Tw (subject to the restraints of the Fourth Amendment.) Tj (�) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (O'Connor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 480 U.S. at 715. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (O'Connor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Supreme Court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (reasoned that ) Tj (�[i]ndividuals do not lose Fourth Amendment) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (rights merely because they work for the government instead) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (of a private employer.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 717. However, the Court also) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.17 Tw (noted that ) Tj (�[t]he operational realities of the workplace . . .) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.24 Tw (may make ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (some ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (employees' expectations of privacy unrea-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (sonable.� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( For example, ) Tj (�[p]ublic employees' expectations) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (of privacy in their offices, desks, and file cabinets . . . may be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (reduced by virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.18 Tw (by legitimate regulation.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The Court recognized that,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (�[g]iven the great variety of work environments in the public) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.46 Tw (sector, the question whether an employee has a reasonable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-case) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (basis.� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 718. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.57 Tw (Even assuming an employee has a reasonable expectation) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (of privacy in the item seized or the area searched, he must) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (also demonstrate that the search was unreasonable to prove a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .76 Tw (Fourth Amendment violation: ) Tj (�public employer intrusions on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.8 Tw (employees for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (well as for investigations of work-related misconduct, should) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the cir-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7017) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 64 0 obj 4162 endobj 62 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 63 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 19 19 66 0 obj << /Length 67 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.16 Tw 0 Tc (cumstances.� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 725-26. Under this standard, we must) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.96 Tw (evaluate whether the search was ) Tj (�justified at its inception,) Tj (�) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .07 Tw (and whether it ) Tj (�was reasonably related in scope to the circum-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .85 Tw (stances which justified the interference in the first place.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (at 726 \(internal quotation marks omitted\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -26.7 Td (1.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 1 -26.7 Td 1.25 Tw ([10]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The extent to which the Fourth Amendment provides) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2.24 Tw (protection for the contents of electronic communications in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .1 Tw (the Internet age is an open question. The recently minted stan-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .9 Tw (dard of electronic communication via e-mails, text messages,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.14 Tw (and other means opens a new frontier in Fourth Amendment) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .11 Tw (jurisprudence that has been little explored. Here, we must first) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.58 Tw (answer the threshold question: Do users of text messaging) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .67 Tw (services such as those provided by Arch Wireless have a rea-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.75 Tw (sonable expectation of privacy in their text messages stored) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (on the service provider's network? We hold that they do. ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .9 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Katz v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 389 U.S. 347 \(1967\), the govern-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.96 Tw (ment placed an electronic listening device on a public tele-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.62 Tw (phone booth, which allowed the government to listen to the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .62 Tw (telephone user's conversation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 348. The Supreme Court) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.41 Tw (held that listening to the conversation through the electronic) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.42 Tw (device violated the user's reasonable expectation of privacy.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td .33 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 353. In so holding, the Court reasoned, ) Tj (�One who occu-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .45 Tw (pies [a phone booth], shuts the door behind him, and pays the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 0 Tw (toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .09 Tw (that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broad-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.23 Tw (cast to the world. To read the Constitution more narrowly is) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.06 Tw (to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has come to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.08 Tw (play in private communication.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 352. Therefore, ) Tj (�[t]he) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.55 Tw (Government's activities in electronically listening to and) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3 Tw (recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.25 Tw (which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .11 Tw (and thus constituted a `search and seizure' within the meaning) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (of the Fourth Amendment.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 353. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7018) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 67 0 obj 3855 endobj 65 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 66 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 20 20 70 0 obj << /Length 71 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .6 Tw 0 Tc (On the other hand, the Court has also held that the govern-) Tj -12 -13 Td .67 Tw (ment's use of a pen register�a device that records the phone) Tj 0 -13 Td .94 Tw (numbers one dials�does not violate the Fourth Amendment.) Tj 0 -13 Td .26 Tw (This is because people ) Tj (�realize that they must `convey' phone) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.77 Tw (numbers to the telephone company, since it is through tele-) Tj 0 -13 Td .5 Tw (phone company switching equipment that their calls are com-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.92 Tw (pleted.� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Smith v. Maryland) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 442 U.S. 735, 742 \(1979\). The) Tj 0 -13 Td .4 Tw (Court distinguished ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Katz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( by noting that ) Tj (�a pen register differs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (significantly from the listening device employed in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Katz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (pen registers do not acquire the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (contents ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (of communications.) Tj (�) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 741. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.15 Tw (This distinction also applies to written communications,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (such as letters. It is well-settled that, ) Tj (�since 1878, . . . the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 9.5 Tw (Fourth Amendment's protection against `unreasonable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (searches and seizures' protects a citizen against the warrant-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (less opening of sealed letters and packages addressed to him) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (in order to examine the contents.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Choate) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (576 F.2d 165, 174 \(9th Cir. 1978\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ex parte Jackson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (96 U.S. 727 \(1877\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also United States v. Jacobsen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 466) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .82 Tw (U.S. 109, 114 \(1984\) \() Tj (�Letters and other sealed packages are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .61 Tw (in the general class of effects in which the public at large has) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (a legitimate expectation of privacy.) Tj (�\). However, as with the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (phone numbers they dial, individuals do not enjoy a reason-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (able expectation of privacy in what they write on the outside) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.63 Tw (of an envelope. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See United States v. Hernandez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 313 F.3d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (1206, 1209-10 \(9th Cir. 2002\) \() Tj (�Although a person has a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (legitimate interest that a mailed package will not be opened) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (and searched en route, there can be no reasonable expectation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (that postal service employees will not handle the package or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (that they will not view its exterior) Tj (� \(citations omitted\)\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 3.04 Tw ([11]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Our Internet jurisprudence is instructive. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (States v. Forrester) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we held that ) Tj (�e-mail . . . users have no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (expectation of privacy in the to/from addresses of their mes-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (sages . . . because they should know that this information is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (provided to and used by Internet service providers for the spe-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (cific purpose of directing the routing of information.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7019) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 71 0 obj 4192 endobj 69 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 70 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 21 21 73 0 obj << /Length 74 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .96 Tw 0 Tc (States v. Forrester) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 512 F.3d 500, 510 \(9th Cir. 2008\). Thus,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.52 Tw (we have extended the pen register and outside-of-envelope) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.7 Tw (rationales to the ) Tj (�to/from) Tj (� line of e-mails. But we have not) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.42 Tw (ruled on whether persons have a reasonable expectation of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.03 Tw (privacy in the content of e-mails. Like the Supreme Court in) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.3 Td 1.78 Tw (Smith) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Forrester ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (we explicitly noted that ) Tj (�e-mail to/from) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.06 Tw (addresses . . . constitute addressing information and do not) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1 Tw (necessarily reveal any more about the underlying contents of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.78 Tw (communication than do phone numbers.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Thus, we con-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .13 Tw (cluded that ) Tj (�[t]he privacy interests in these two forms of com-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .33 Tw (munication [letters and e-mails] are identical,) Tj (� and that, while) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.78 Tw (�[t]he contents may deserve Fourth Amendment protection) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.42 Tw (. . . the address and size of the package do not.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 511.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.3 Td .83 Tw ([12]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We see no meaningful difference between the e-mails) Tj -12 -13.3 Td .05 Tw (at issue in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Forrester) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and the text messages at issue here.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Both) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .16 Tw (are sent from user to user via a service provider that stores the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2 Tw (messages on its servers. Similarly, as in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Forrester) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we also) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .83 Tw (see no meaningful distinction between text messages and let-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .45 Tw (ters. As with letters and e-mails, it is not reasonable to expect) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.25 Tw (privacy in the information used to ) Tj (�address) Tj (� a text message,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.3 Tw (such as the dialing of a phone number to send a message.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.46 Tw (However, users do have a reasonable expectation of privacy) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .53 Tw (in the content of their text messages vis-a-vis the service pro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .48 Tw (vider. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Cf. ) Tj (United States v. Finley) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 477 F.3d 250, 259 \(5th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (2007\) \(holding that defendant had a reasonable expectation of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.93 Tw (privacy in the text messages on his cell phone, and that he) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .12 Tw (consequently had standing to challenge the search\). That Arch) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.27 Tw (Wireless may have been able to access the contents of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .44 Tw (messages for its own purposes is irrelevant. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See United States) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.78 Tw (v. Heckencamp) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 482 F.3d 1142, 1146-47 \(9th Cir. 2007\)) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (\(holding that a student did not lose his reasonable expectation) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2 Tw (of privacy in information stored on his computer, despite a) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.21 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Because Jeff Quon's reasonable expectation of privacy hinges on the) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.47 Tw (OPD's informal policy regarding his use of the OPD-issued pagers, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.83 Tw (infra ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (pages 7027-29, this conclusion affects only the rights of Trujillo,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (Florio, and Jerilyn Quon. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7020) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 74 0 obj 4421 endobj 72 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 73 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 22 22 76 0 obj << /Length 77 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.14 Tw 0 Tc (university policy that it could access his computer in limited) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.88 Tw (circumstances while connected to the university's network\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 2.36 Tw (United States v. Ziegler) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 474 F.3d 1184, 1189-90 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13 Td .25 Tw (2007\) \(holding that an employee had a reasonable expectation) Tj 0 -13 Td .27 Tw (of privacy in a computer in a locked office despite a company) Tj 0 -13 Td .84 Tw (policy that computer usage would be monitored\). For, just as) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.37 Tw (in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Heckencamp) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, where we found persuasive that there was) Tj 0 -13 Td .17 Tw (�no policy allowing the university actively to monitor or audit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw ([the student's] computer usage,) Tj (� 482 F.3d at 1147, Appellants) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (did not expect that Arch Wireless would monitor their text) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (messages, much less turn over the messages to third parties) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (without Appellants' consent. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .73 Tw ([13]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We do not endorse a monolithic view of text message) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (users' reasonable expectation of privacy, as this is necessarily) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (a context-sensitive inquiry. Absent an agreement to the con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.62 Tw (trary, Trujillo, Florio, and Jerilyn Quon had no reasonable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (expectation that Jeff Quon would maintain the private nature) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.7 Tw (of their text messages, or vice versa. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (Maxwell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 45 M.J. 406, 418 \(C.A.A.F. 1996\) \() Tj (�[T]he maker of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (a telephone call has a reasonable expectation that police offi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (cials will not intercept and listen to the conversation; how-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.39 Tw (ever, the conversation itself is held with the risk that one of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.58 Tw (the participants may reveal what is said to others.) Tj (� \(citing) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (Hoffa v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 385 U.S. 293, 302 \(1966\)\)\). Had Jeff) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (Quon voluntarily permitted the Department to review his text) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (messages, the remaining Appellants would have no claims.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (Nevertheless, the OPD surreptitiously reviewed messages that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.67 Tw (all parties reasonably believed were free from third-party) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (review. As a matter of law, Trujillo, Florio, and Jerilyn Quon) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (had a reasonable expectation that the Department would not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (review their messages absent consent from either a sender or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (recipient of the text messages. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .55 Tw ([14]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We now turn to Jeff Quon's reasonable expectation of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.61 Tw (privacy, which turns on the Department's policies regarding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (privacy in his text messages. We agree with the district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (that the Department's informal policy that the text messages) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7021) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 77 0 obj 3842 endobj 75 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 76 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 23 23 79 0 obj << /Length 80 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .4 Tw 0 Tc (would not be audited if he paid the overages rendered Quon's) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.2 Tw (expectation of privacy in those messages reasonable. ) Tj 12 -27.4 Td 1.61 Tw (The Department's general ) Tj (�Computer Usage, Internet and) Tj -12 -13.9 Td .47 Tw (E-mail Policy) Tj (� stated both that the use of computers ) Tj (�for per-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .4 Tw (sonal benefit is a significant violation of City of Ontario Poli-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .2 Tw (cy� and that ) Tj (�[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .47 Tw (confidentiality when using these resources.) Tj (� Quon signed this) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .27 Tw (Policy and attended a meeting in which it was made clear that) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.27 Tw (the Policy also applied to use of the pagers. If that were all,) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.06 Tw (this case would be analogous to the cases relied upon by the) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .7 Tw (Appellees. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Muick v. Glenayre Elecs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (., 280 F.3d 741,) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .44 Tw (743 \(7th Cir. 2002\) \() Tj (�[Employer] had announced that it could) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .69 Tw (inspect the laptops that it furnished for the use of its employ-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .8 Tw (ees, and this destroyed any reasonable expectation of privacy) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .81 Tw (that [employee] might have had and so scotches his claim.) Tj (�\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.8 Td .36 Tw (Bohach v. City of Reno) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 932 F. Supp. 1232, 1234-35 \(D. Nev.) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .91 Tw (1996\) \(finding a diminished expectation of privacy under the) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 3.18 Tw (Fourth Amendment where police department had issued a) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 3.55 Tw (memorandum informing employees that messages sent on) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 2.71 Tw (city-issued pagers would be ) Tj (�logged on the [department's]) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 2.42 Tw (network� and that certain types of messages were ) Tj (�banned) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .48 Tw (from the system,) Tj (� and because any employee ) Tj (�with access to,) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .37 Tw (and a working knowledge of, the Department's computer sys-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.47 Tw (tem� could see the messages\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also O'Connor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 480 U.S.) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.4 Tw (at 719 \(noting that expectation of privacy would not be rea-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .25 Tw (sonable if the employer ) Tj (�had established any reasonable regu-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 2.95 Tw (lation or policy discouraging employees . . . from storing) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.74 Tw (personal papers and effects in their desks or file cabinets) Tj (�\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.8 Td 2.57 Tw (Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 823 F.2d 1328,) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 3.71 Tw (1335 \(9th Cir. 1987\) \() Tj (�We conclude that [the employee]) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 3.42 Tw (would enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .6 Tw (given over to his exclusive use, unless he was on notice from) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.3 Tw (his employer that searches of the type to which he was sub-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 2.11 Tw (jected might occur from time to time for work-related pur-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (poses.�\). ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7022) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 80 0 obj 3778 endobj 78 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 79 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 24 24 82 0 obj << /Length 83 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1.96 Tw 0 Tc ([15]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( As the district court made clear, however, such was) Tj -12 -13.5 Td (not the ) Tj (�operational reality) Tj (� at the Department. The district) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (court reasoned:) Tj 22 -26.7 Td .96 Tw () Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj .96 Tw (Lieutenant Duke made it clear to the staff, and to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .22 Tw (Quon in particular, that he would ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (not) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( audit their pag-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.37 Tw (ers so long as they agreed to pay for any overages.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .25 Tw (Given that Lieutenant Duke was the one in charge of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.61 Tw (administering the use of the city-owned pagers, his) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.14 Tw (statements carry a great deal of weight. Indeed,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.5 Tw (before the events that transpired in this case the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (department did not audit any employee's use of the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.11 Tw (pager for the eight months the pagers had been in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (use. ) Tj -22 -26.7 Td 1.58 Tw (Even more telling, Quon had exceeded the 25,000 character) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.7 Tw (limit ) Tj (�three or four times,) Tj (� and had paid for the overages) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 0 Tw (every time without anyone reviewing the text of the messages.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (This demonstrated that the OPD followed its ) Tj (�informal poli-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .33 Tw (cy� and that Quon reasonably relied on it. Nevertheless, with-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 6.96 Tw (out warning, his text messages were audited by the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.28 Tw (Department. Under these circumstances, Quon had a reason-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.22 Tw (able expectation of privacy in the text messages archived on) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Arch Wireless's server. ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 1.71 Tw (Appellees argue that, because Lieutenant Duke was not a) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.96 Tw (policymaker, his informal policy could not create an objec-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (tively reasonable expectation of privacy. Moreover, Lieuten-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.75 Tw (ant Duke's statements ) Tj (�were specific to his own bill-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.23 Tw (collecting practices) Tj (� and were ) Tj (�limited to . . . an accounting) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .1 Tw (audit. He did not address privacy rights.) Tj (� However, as the dis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.55 Tw (trict court pointed out, ) Tj (�Lieutenant Duke was the one in) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.03 Tw (charge of administering the use of the city-owned pagers,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .7 Tw ([and] his statements carry a great deal of weight.) Tj (� That Lieu-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.66 Tw (tenant Duke was not the official policymaker, or even the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.32 Tw (final policymaker, does not diminish the chain of command.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.36 Tw (He was in charge of the pagers, and it was reasonable for) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7023) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 83 0 obj 3360 endobj 81 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 82 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 25 25 85 0 obj << /Length 86 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.66 Tw 0 Tc (Quon to rely on the policy�formal or informal�that Lieu-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (tenant Duke established and enforced. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.4 Td 1.16 Tw ([16]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Appellees also point to the California Public Records) Tj -12 -13.3 Td .41 Tw (Act \() Tj (�CPRA) Tj (�\) to argue that Quon had no reasonable expecta-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.82 Tw (tion of privacy because, under that Act, ) Tj (�public records are) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .02 Tw (open to inspection at all times . . . and every person has a right) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.42 Tw (to inspect any public record.) Tj (� C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 4.37 Tw (AL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 4.42 Tw ( G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 4.37 Tw (OV) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 4.42 Tw (') Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 4.37 Tw (T) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 4.42 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz 4.37 Tw (ODE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 4.42 Tw ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.42 Tw (6253.) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.44 Tw (Assuming for purposes of this appeal that the text messages) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.51 Tw (archived on Arch Wireless's server were public records as) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.77 Tw (defined by the CPRA,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( we are not persuaded by Appellees') Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.62 Tw (argument. The CPRA does not diminish an employee's rea-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .41 Tw (sonable expectation of privacy. As the district court reasoned,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.08 Tw (�There is no evidence before the [c]ourt suggesting that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.88 Tw (CPRA requests to the department are so widespread or fre-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .93 Tw (quent as to constitute `an open atmosphere so open to fellow) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .6 Tw (employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is rea-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .25 Tw (sonable.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .25 Tw (� \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Leventhal v. Knapek) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 266 F.3d 64, 74 \(2d) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (Cir. 2001\) \(internal quotation marks omitted\)\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.3 Td .24 Tw ([17]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The Fourth Amendment utilizes a reasonableness stan-) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 2.66 Tw (dard. Although the fact that a hypothetical member of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.42 Tw (public may request Quon's text messages might slightly) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.62 Tw (diminish his expectation of privacy in the messages, it does) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .57 Tw (not make his belief in the privacy of the text messages objec-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.78 Tw (tively unreasonable. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Zaffuto v. City of Hammond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 308) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.18 Tw (F.3d 485, 489 \(5th Cir. 2002\) \() Tj (�[Defendant] also argues that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .93 Tw (the existence of Louisiana's public records law and a depart-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (ment policy that calls would be taped suggests that it would) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .92 Tw (not be objectively reasonable for [plaintiff] to expect privacy) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .28 Tw (in making a personal phone call from work . . . . [The officers) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.11 Tw (testified that] they understood the policy to mean that only) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.14 Tw (calls coming into the communications room \(where outside) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .95 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Act defines ) Tj (�public records) Tj (� as ) Tj (�any writing containing informa-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .05 Tw (tion relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.71 Tw (or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (characteristics.� C) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (AL) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw ( G) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (OV) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw (') Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (T) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw ( C) Tj /F2 7 Tf 101.4 Tz .69 Tw (ODE) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1 Tw ( �) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (6252\(e\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7024) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 86 0 obj 4643 endobj 84 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 85 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 26 26 89 0 obj << /Length 90 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.33 Tw 0 Tc (citizens would call\) were being recorded, not calls from pri-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.44 Tw (vate offices. A reasonable juror could conclude, on this evi-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (dence, that [plaintiff] expected that his call to his wife would) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.53 Tw (be private, and that that expectation was objectively reason-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.83 Tw (able.�\). Therefore, Appellees' CPRA argument is without) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (merit. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -26.7 Td (2.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Reasonableness of the Search ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1 -26.7 Td 1 Tw (Given that Appellants had a reasonable expectation of pri-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2.66 Tw (vacy in their text messages, we now consider whether the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (search was reasonable. We hold that it was not. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.5 Tw (The district court found a material dispute concerning the) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .18 Tw (�actual ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (purpose ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (or ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (objective ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Chief Scharf sought to achieve in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.05 Tw (having Lieutenant Duke perform the audit of Quon's pager.) Tj (�) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .2 Tw (It reasoned that if Chief Scharf's purpose was to uncover mis-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .62 Tw (conduct, the search was unreasonable at its inception because) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.23 Tw (�the officers' pagers were audited for the period when Lieu-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.7 Tw (tenant Duke's informal, but express policy of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (not ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (auditing) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.41 Tw (pagers unless overages went unpaid was in effect.) Tj (� The dis-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.07 Tw (trict court further reasoned, however, that if the purpose was) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.73 Tw (to determine ) Tj (�the utility or efficacy of the existing monthly) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.72 Tw (character limits,) Tj (� the search was reasonable because ) Tj (�the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .02 Tw (audit was done for the benefit of \(not as a punishment against\)) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .52 Tw (the officers who had gone over the monthly character limits.) Tj (�) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.03 Tw (Concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed on) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.1 Tw (this point, the district judge determined that this was a ques-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.17 Tw (tion for the jury. The jury found that Chief Scharf's purpose) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .48 Tw (was to ) Tj (�determine the efficacy of the existing character limits) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.87 Tw (to ensure that officers were not being required to pay for) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.37 Tw (work-related expenses,) Tj (� rendering a verdict in favor of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (City, the Department, Scharf, and Glenn. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .2 Tw (Given that a jury has already found that Chief Scharf's pur-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (pose in auditing the text messages was to determine the effi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.66 Tw (cacy of the 25,000 character limit, we must determine�) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7025) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 90 0 obj 3505 endobj 88 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 89 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 27 27 92 0 obj << /Length 93 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .33 Tw 0 Tc (keeping that purpose in mind�whether the search was never-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (theless unconstitutional. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.41 Tw (A search is reasonable ) Tj (�at its inception) Tj (� if there are ) Tj (�rea-) Tj -12 -13 Td 0 Tw (sonable grounds for suspecting . . . that the search is necessary) Tj 0 -13 Td 5.47 Tw (for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to) Tj 0 -13 Td .74 Tw (retrieve a needed file.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (O'Connor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 480 U.S. at 726. Here, the) Tj 0 -13 Td .34 Tw (purpose was to ensure that officers were not being required to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.21 Tw (pay for work-related expenses. This is a legitimate work-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (related rationale, as the district court acknowledged. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.15 Tw ([18]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( However, the search was not reasonable in scope. As) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (O'Connor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( makes clear, a search is reasonable in scope ) Tj (�when) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .82 Tw (of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of . . . the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.47 Tw (nature of the [misconduct].) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(internal quotation marks) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (omitted\). Thus, ) Tj (�if less intrusive methods were feasible, or if) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (the depth of the inquiry or extent of the seizure exceeded that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (necessary for the government's legitimate purposes . . . the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (search would be unreasonable . . . .) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Schowengerdt) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 823 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (at 1336. The district court determined that there were no less-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (intrusive means, reasoning that talking to the officers before-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (hand or looking only at the numbers dialed would not have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (allowed Chief Scharf to determine whether 25,000 characters) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.48 Tw (were sufficient for work-related text messaging because that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (required examining the content of all the messages. Therefore,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.47 Tw (�the only way to accurately and definitively determine) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.16 Tw (whether such hidden costs were being imposed by the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (monthly character limits that were in place was by looking at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (the actual text-messages used by the officers who exceeded) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the character limits.) Tj (� ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .3 Tw ([19]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We disagree. There were a host of simple ways to ver-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (ify the efficacy of the 25,000 character limit \(if that, indeed,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (was the intended purpose\) without intruding on Appellants') Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.76 Tw (Fourth Amendment rights. For example, the Department) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (could have warned Quon that for the month of September he) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (was forbidden from using his pager for personal communica-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7026) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 93 0 obj 3757 endobj 91 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 92 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 28 28 95 0 obj << /Length 96 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.63 Tw 0 Tc (tions, and that the contents of all of his messages would be) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.07 Tw (reviewed to ensure the pager was used only for work-related) Tj 0 -13 Td .83 Tw (purposes during that time frame. Alternatively, if the Depart-) Tj 0 -13 Td .97 Tw (ment wanted to review past usage, it could have asked Quon) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.77 Tw (to count the characters himself, or asked him to redact per-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.58 Tw (sonal messages and grant permission to the Department to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.24 Tw (review the redacted transcript. Under this process, Quon) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.27 Tw (would have an incentive to be truthful because he may have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.23 Tw (previously paid for work-related overages and presumably) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (would want the limit increased to avoid paying for such over-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (ages in the future. These are just a few of the ways in which) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (the Department could have conducted a search that was rea-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (sonable in scope. Instead, the Department opted to review the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (contents of all the messages, work-related and personal, with-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (out the consent of Quon or the remaining Appellants. This) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (was excessively intrusive in light of the noninvestigatory) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (object of the search, and because Appellants had a reasonable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (expectation of privacy in those messages, the search violated) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (their Fourth Amendment rights. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -26 Td (3.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Qualified Immunity for Chief Scharf) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 1 -26 Td 1.1 Tw (Chief Scharf asserts that, even if we conclude that he vio-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (lated Appellants' Fourth Amendment and California constitu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (tional privacy rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity. We) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (agree. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .71 Tw (When determining whether qualified immunity applies, we) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 4.28 Tw (engage in the following two-step inquiry. First, we ask,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (�[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (a constitutional right?) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Saucier v. Katz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 533 U.S. 194, 201) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (\(2001\). If we answer this question in the affirmative, as we do) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.15 Tw (here, we then proceed to determine ) Tj (�whether the right was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (clearly established.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj (�This inquiry . . . must be undertaken) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad gen-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (eral proposition.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Specifically, ) Tj (�[t]he relevant, dispositive) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7027) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 96 0 obj 3658 endobj 94 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 95 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 29 29 98 0 obj << /Length 99 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.72 Tw 0 Tc (is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.66 Tw (conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (202. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.52 Tw (Chief Scharf argues that, ) Tj (�[i]n 2002, there was no clearly) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.44 Tw (established law from the Supreme Court or our Circuit gov-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .07 Tw (erning the right of a government employer to review text mes-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.75 Tw (sages on government-issued pagers in order to determine) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .67 Tw (whether employees are engaging in excessive personal use of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .16 Tw (the pagers while on duty.) Tj (� Chief Scharf misconstrues ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Saucier) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.79 Tw (While there may be no case with a holding that aligns per-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (fectly with the factual scenario presented here, it was clear at) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .21 Tw (the time of the search that an employee is free from unreason-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .18 Tw (able search and seizure in the workplace. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (O'Connor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.14 Tw (480 U.S. at 715 \(1987\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Schowengerdt) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 823 F.2d at 1335) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.62 Tw (\(1987\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ortega v. O'Connor) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 146 F.3d 1149, 1157 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.14 Tw (1998\) \() Tj (�[I]t was clearly established in 1981 that, in the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .9 Tw (absence of an accepted practice or regulation to the contrary,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.77 Tw (government employees . . . had a reasonable expectation of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.28 Tw (privacy in their private offices, desks, and file cabinets,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.67 Tw (thereby triggering the protections of the Fourth Amendment) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (with regard to searches and seizures.) Tj (�\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.7 Td 2 Tw ([20]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Nevertheless, we ultimately agree with Chief Scharf) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .63 Tw (because, at the time of the search, there was no clearly estab-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (lished law regarding whether users of text-messages that are) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.48 Tw (archived, however temporarily, by the service provider have) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .37 Tw (a reasonable expectation of privacy in those messages. There-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (fore, Chief Scharf is entitled to qualified immunity. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 11 -26.7 Td 3.66 Tw (4.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 3.66 Tw (Statutory Immunity on the California Constitutional) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Claim ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1 -26.7 Td .18 Tw (The City and the Department contend that they are shielded) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .87 Tw (from liability on the California constitutional claim. We con-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .7 Tw (clude that the district court correctly determined that the City) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.12 Tw (and the Department are not protected by statutory immunity.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7028) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 99 0 obj 3651 endobj 97 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 98 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 30 30 101 0 obj << /Length 102 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 2.6 Tw 0 Tc (California Government Code section 821.6 provides that) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.33 Tw (�[a] public employee is not liable for injury caused by his) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.75 Tw (instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative pro-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.3 Tw (ceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts) Tj 0 -13 Td .75 Tw (maliciously and without probable cause.) Tj (� ) Tj (�The policy behind) Tj 0 -13 Td .8 Tw (section 821.6 is to encourage fearless performance of official) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (duties. State officers and employees are encouraged to inves-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (tigate and prosecute matters within their purview without fear) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (of reprisal from the person or entity harmed thereby.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Shoe-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (maker v. Myers) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2 Cal. App. 4th 1407, 1424 \(1992\) \(citations) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (omitted\). Immunity ) Tj (�also extends to actions taken in prepara-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.57 Tw (tion for formal proceedings. Because investigation is an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (essential step toward the institution of formal proceedings, it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (is also cloaked with immunity.) Tj (� ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Amylou R. v. County of Riv-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (erside) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1205, 1209-10 \(1994\) \(internal quo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tation marks omitted\).) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.95 Tw ([21]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Although Chief Scharf ordered an ) Tj (�investigation) Tj (� in) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (the ordinary sense of the word, the investigation never could) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (have led to a ) Tj (�judicial or administrative proceeding) Tj (� because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.95 Tw (Lieutenant Duke's informal policy permitted officers to use) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.44 Tw (the pagers for personal purposes and to exceed the 25,000) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (character limit. Thus, Quon could have committed no miscon-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (duct, a prerequisite for a formal proceeding against him. As) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.12 Tw (such, the City's and Department's conduct does not fall) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (within California Government Code section 821.6, and they) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (are not entitled to statutory immunity.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 97.5 -26 Td (V.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (CONCLUSION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -85.5 -26 Td .04 Tw (As a matter of law, Arch Wireless is an ) Tj (�electronic commu-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.28 Tw (nication service) Tj (� that provided text messaging service via) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.37 Tw (pagers to the Ontario Police Department. The search of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.76 Tw (Appellants' text messages violated their Fourth Amendment) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (and California constitutional privacy rights because they had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of the text) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (messages, and the search was unreasonable in scope. While) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (Chief Scharf is shielded by qualified immunity, the City and) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7029) Tj -182.8853 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 102 0 obj 3689 endobj 100 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 101 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 31 31 104 0 obj << /Length 105 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.62 Tw 0 Tc (the Department are not shielded by statutory immunity. In) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.18 Tw (light of our conclusions of law, we affirm in part, reverse in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.26 Tw (part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.76 Tw (on Appellants' Stored Communications Act claim against) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.07 Tw (Arch Wireless, and their claims against the City, the Depart-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .37 Tw (ment, and Glenn under the Fourth Amendment and California) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Constitution. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .6 Tw (Because we hold that Appellants prevail as a matter of law) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.66 Tw (on their claims against Arch Wireless, the City, the Depart-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.4 Tw (ment, and Glenn, we need not reach their appeal from the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .27 Tw (denial of their motions to alter or amend the judgment and for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .06 Tw (a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The par-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (ties shall bear their own costs of appeal. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 8.43 Tw (AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (REMANDED for Further Proceedings.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7030) Tj 95.1147 0 Td (Q) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (UON) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (RCH) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (IRELESS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 105 0 obj 1704 endobj 103 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources <> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 104 0 R >> endobj 1 0 obj [ /PDF /Text ] endobj 107 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 108 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Bold /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 139.00 /StemH 69.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 676 /XHeight 461 /Ascent 676 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 6 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F1 /BaseFont /Times-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300 250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778 611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500 333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500 556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400 722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556 667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000 389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722 722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ] /Encoding 107 0 R /FontDescriptor 108 0 R >> endobj 109 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 110 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Roman /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 84.00 /StemH 42.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 662 /XHeight 450 /Ascent 683 /Descent -217 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 7 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F2 /BaseFont /Times-Roman /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300 250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444 921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500 333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400 667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611 444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556 611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ] /Encoding 109 0 R /FontDescriptor 110 0 R >> endobj 111 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 240 /apple ] >> endobj 112 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Symbol /Flags 4 /FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 85.00 /StemH 42.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 0 /XHeight 0 /Ascent 0 /Descent 0 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 8 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F3 /BaseFont /Symbol /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444 549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722 768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500 500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549 549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603 400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658 823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603 494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494 790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ] /Encoding 111 0 R /FontDescriptor 112 0 R >> endobj 113 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 114 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Italic /Flags 98 /FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 76.00 /StemH 38.00 /ItalicAngle -15.50 /CapHeight 653 /XHeight 441 /Ascent 683 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 9 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F4 /BaseFont /Times-Italic /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300 250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500 920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722 611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500 333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500 500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400 667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611 611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611 500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500 611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ] /Encoding 113 0 R /FontDescriptor 114 0 R >> endobj 115 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 116 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Helvetica-Bold /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 140.00 /StemH 70.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 718 /XHeight 532 /Ascent 718 /Descent -207 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F5 /BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333 278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611 975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778 667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556 278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611 611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400 722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722 667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611 667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000 278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722 722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ] /Encoding 115 0 R /FontDescriptor 116 0 R >> endobj 10 0 obj << /Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 117 0 R >> endobj 30 0 obj << /Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 117 0 R >> endobj 49 0 obj << /Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 117 0 R >> endobj 68 0 obj << /Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R 72 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 117 0 R >> endobj 87 0 obj << /Kids [84 0 R 88 0 R 91 0 R 94 0 R 97 0 R 100 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 117 0 R >> endobj 106 0 obj << /Kids [103 0 R] /Count 1 /Type /Pages /Parent 117 0 R >> endobj 117 0 obj << /Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R 87 0 R 106 0 R] /Count 31 /Type /Pages /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] >> endobj 2 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 117 0 R >> endobj 118 0 obj << /CreationDate (Tuesday June 17, 2008 08:39:16) /Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2) /Producer (ECMP5) >> endobj xref 0 119 0000000000 65535 f 0000122950 00000 n 0000135966 00000 n 0000004477 00000 n 0000000044 00000 n 0000004454 00000 n 0000124417 00000 n 0000127073 00000 n 0000128631 00000 n 0000131282 00000 n 0000135162 00000 n 0000006796 00000 n 0000004691 00000 n 0000006772 00000 n 0000010563 00000 n 0000006990 00000 n 0000010539 00000 n 0000133937 00000 n 0000014178 00000 n 0000010769 00000 n 0000014154 00000 n 0000017897 00000 n 0000014372 00000 n 0000017873 00000 n 0000021409 00000 n 0000018091 00000 n 0000021385 00000 n 0000025019 00000 n 0000021603 00000 n 0000024995 00000 n 0000135279 00000 n 0000028725 00000 n 0000025213 00000 n 0000028701 00000 n 0000033748 00000 n 0000028930 00000 n 0000033724 00000 n 0000037637 00000 n 0000033967 00000 n 0000037613 00000 n 0000041775 00000 n 0000037856 00000 n 0000041751 00000 n 0000046310 00000 n 0000041982 00000 n 0000046286 00000 n 0000050588 00000 n 0000046517 00000 n 0000050564 00000 n 0000135397 00000 n 0000054107 00000 n 0000050795 00000 n 0000054083 00000 n 0000058182 00000 n 0000054314 00000 n 0000058158 00000 n 0000062510 00000 n 0000058389 00000 n 0000062486 00000 n 0000066441 00000 n 0000062717 00000 n 0000066417 00000 n 0000070895 00000 n 0000066648 00000 n 0000070871 00000 n 0000075042 00000 n 0000071102 00000 n 0000075018 00000 n 0000135515 00000 n 0000079526 00000 n 0000075249 00000 n 0000079502 00000 n 0000084239 00000 n 0000079733 00000 n 0000084215 00000 n 0000088385 00000 n 0000084458 00000 n 0000088361 00000 n 0000092455 00000 n 0000088592 00000 n 0000092431 00000 n 0000096107 00000 n 0000092662 00000 n 0000096083 00000 n 0000101042 00000 n 0000096314 00000 n 0000101018 00000 n 0000135633 00000 n 0000104851 00000 n 0000101261 00000 n 0000104827 00000 n 0000108900 00000 n 0000105058 00000 n 0000108876 00000 n 0000112850 00000 n 0000109107 00000 n 0000112826 00000 n 0000116793 00000 n 0000113057 00000 n 0000116769 00000 n 0000120777 00000 n 0000117000 00000 n 0000120752 00000 n 0000122778 00000 n 0000120986 00000 n 0000122753 00000 n 0000135752 00000 n 0000122983 00000 n 0000124136 00000 n 0000125639 00000 n 0000126792 00000 n 0000128291 00000 n 0000128364 00000 n 0000129845 00000 n 0000130998 00000 n 0000132499 00000 n 0000133652 00000 n 0000135837 00000 n 0000136023 00000 n trailer << /Size 119 /Root 2 0 R /Info 118 0 R >> startxref 136161 %%EOF

URL: https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/privacy/workplace/9th_cir_quon.pdf

⇱