The Courts and the Constitution

1. The Courts and the Constitution City of Ontario, California v. Quon, 130 S. Ct. 2619 (2010) TM

2. JUDGES If you were responsible for selecting all of the judges in Florida, what would you look for? • Knowledge • Skills • Disposition/Qualities TM

3. JUDGES How are judges different from other elected officials such as legislators? TM

4. JUDGES • Should judges be influenced by political pressures when deciding a case? • Would you want a judge to make a decision based on the law or how the public might react to the decision? • Should judges do what is legally right or should they do what is popular? TM

5. JUDGES JUDGES MUST FOLLOW: FEDERAL CONSTITUTION STATE CONSTITUTION STATUTES RULES HIGHER COURT DECISIONS (PRECEDENT) TM

6. JUDGES So, a judge cannot decide a case based on how he/she feels about an issue. TM

7. JUDGES If a judge does not follow the existing law, his/her decision is subject to review by an appellate court. All courts are subject to review by a higher court except for the highest court in the country: the Supreme Court of the United States. TM

8. Today, you will be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and decide a real case involving the Fourth Amendment. TM

9. FOURTH AMENDMENT But first – You need to know about the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. TM

10. FOURTH AMENDMENT The Text “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.” TM

11. FOURTH AMENDMENT • The Fourth Amendment applies to state or government employees, NOT private employers TM

12. Federalism • There are two judicial systems in the United States: • Federal • State • Let’s take a look at Florida’s court system TM

13. Supreme Court 7 Judges District Courts of Appeal 62 Judges Circuit Courts 599 Judges County Courts 322 Judges Florida Court Structure TM

14. Florida Court Structure Criminal defendant will appear in circuit court before one trial judge. TM

15. Florida Court Structure What is an Appeal? TM

16. Florida Court Structure TM

17. Florida Court Structure –District Court of Appeal • 3 judges sit to hear case • Decision • What is next? TM

18. The Florida Supreme Court Seven Justices TM

19. The Text Message Search NOW THE CASE: Read and highlight or circle the important facts. TM

20. The Text Message Search • What court was this case filed in? • Who is the plaintiff? • Who is the defendant? TM

21. Legal Questions • Was the search reasonable in scope? • Did Quon have a reasonable expectation of privacy? • Was the right in question so clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right? TM

22. To answer these questions, what might a judge need to know? TM

23. FOURTH AMENDMENT Does the Fourth Amendment require a public employer to obtain a warrant before reading private text messages sent to a public device? Let’s look at what the courts have said about the issue… TM

24. United States v. Zavala541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2008) • Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) agents were investigating Jose Zavala when they observed Zavala engaging in, what the DEA believed to be, a drug transaction. • Uniformed officers stopped Zavala’s vehicle, asked him to step out of the vehicle, and removed his wallet and cell phone from his person. • One of the officers proceeded to search Zavala’s cell phone, and discovered incriminating evidence. TM

25. United States v. Zavala541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2008) • During trial, the police officer that searched both Zavala’s person and his cell phone testified that he did so because the search was incident to an arrest. • The federal district court ruled that the officer’s testimony with regard to the information discovered in Zavala’s cell phone was admissible. TM

26. United States v. Zavala541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2008) • The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States reversed, holding that “At the time [the officer] searched Zavala’s cell phone, the agents had a reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking activity, but they did not have probable cause to arrest Zavala and charge him with a crime. . . . Because [the officer] did not have probable cause to arrest Zavala at the time he searched the cell phone, the search was not justified under an ‘incident to arrest’ theory.” TM

27. United States v. Finley477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) • DEA agents were investigating Jacob Finley with regard to a controlled purchase of methamphetamine. • After Finley exchanged methamphetamine for money, he was subsequently detained by uniformed police officers, searched, and had a cell phone removed from his pocket. • During questioning, police officers searched through his cell phone and uncovered several incriminating text messages associated with drug trafficking. TM

28. United States v. Finley477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) • Finley was ultimately convicted in federal district court for drug trafficking. • On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Finley asserted that a cell phone is analogous to a closed container, and despite the lawful arrest, the police had no authority to examine the phone’s contents without a warrant. • The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that “no warrant was required since the search was conducted pursuant to a valid custodial arrest.” TM

29. FOURTH AMENDMENT • “…searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment–subject only to a few established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). • One of these exceptions involves a search incident to an arrest, as discussed in Zavala and Finley. TM

30. FOURTH AMENDMENT Another exception to the warrant requirement is a workplace exception: “[R]equiring the Government to procure a warrant for every work-related intrusion would conflict with the common-sense realization that government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.” National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 666 (1989). TM

31. FOURTH AMENDMENT However, “the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches conducted by the Government, even when the Government acts as an employer.” Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665 (1989). Accordingly, any warrantless search performed by a government employer must be reasonable. See, e.g., New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 329, 340 (1985) (emphasis supplied). TM

32. National Treasury Empls. Union v. Von Raab,489 U.S. 656 (1989) • The U.S. Customs Service required a drug test for employment in any position that was directly involved in the interception of illegal drugs or that required the employee to carry a firearm. The test results would not be turned over to any other agency, including criminal prosecutors. • A federal employees’ union filed suit on behalf of employees affected by the requirement, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment TM

33. National Treasury Empls. Union v. Von Raab489 U.S. 656 (1989) • The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in favor of the Customs Service, held that where “the possible harm against which the Government seeks to guard is substantial, the need to prevent its occurrence furnishes an ample justification for reasonable searches designed to advance the Government’s goal.” Id. at 674-75. TM

34. O’Connor v. Ortega480 U.S. 709 (1987) • A hospital administrator was suspicious about possible improprieties engaged in by his employee. While the employee was on administrative leave pending an investigation, his office, desk, and file cabinets were searched. The employee sued, asserting that the search of his office violated the Fourth Amendment. TM

35. O’Connor v. Ortega480 U.S. 709 (1987) • The U.S. Supreme Court held that a search for a noninvestigatory, work-related purpose or for work-related misconduct is reasonable only if it would have been justified before the search took place and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it in the first place. NOTE: This case was a plurality opinion. TM

36. Fourth Amendment • If the search was not reasonable in scope andQuon did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, is he automatically entitled to relief? TM

37. Section 1983 Claims • “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a [very] relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right . . . the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) (internal citations omitted). • VERY difficult to prove TM

38. Section 1983 Claims • “For a constitutional right to be clearly established in a given case, the right's contours must be so clear that every, objectively reasonable official must understand that what the defendant, in the context of the circumstances of the case, is doing clearly violates the right.” Snider v. Jefferson State Community College, 344 F.3d 1325, 1328 (11th Cir. 2003) TM

39. Section 1983 Claims • “a plaintiff alleging municipal liability under § 1983 must show that the ‘the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability, i.e., that the municipal action was taken with deliberate indifference to its known or obvious consequences.’ ” Doe v. School Bd. of Broward County, Fla., 604 F.3d 1248, 1263 (11th Cir. 2010) TM

40. Section 1983 Claims • “If the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer's conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer should not be subject to liability or, indeed, even the burdens of litigation.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004). TM

41. The Case • Now that we know the law, how did this case work up the federal judicial ladder? TM

42. Federal Court Structure United States Supreme Court One Court Nine Justices United States Courts of Appeal 11 Circuits – 179 Judges Federal District Courts 94 Districts – ~ 650 Judges TM

43. Federal Court Structure Quon filed a § 1983 civil suit against the City of Ontario. TM

44. 1 judge decides question of law, jury decides question of fact • What did the real trial court here decide? TM

45. The judge found, as a matter of law, that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of his text message • A jury, however, found, as a matter of fact, that the purpose of the audit was to determine the adequacy of the character limit and thus found in favor of the City of Ontario • What happens next? TM

46. Federal Court Structure TM

47. United States Courts of Appeal • 3 judges sit to hear case • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search was not reasonable in scope • What is next? TM

48. The United States Supreme Court Nine Justices TM

49. The Text Message Search • Before we discover how the United States Supreme Court decided Quon, ask yourself the following questions and provide written answers based upon the cases we have discussed: TM

50. The Text Message Search • How are the facts from this case similar to the facts from Zavala and Finley? • How are they similar to the facts from National Treasury Employees Union and Ortega? • How are they different? TM