PLEASE HELP down below is the article and the question. Police officer Quon sued his agency and the city he worked for on the grounds that
the department's review of text messages sent to and from his department-issued pager violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case. It concluded that the officer maintained an "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the pager. In addition, the court said, the review of the messages constituted an unreasonable search. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The pager at issue was provided to the officer by the department. It was to be used for communication among SWAT team members. The agency had a "Computer Usage, Internet and E-Mail Policy." This policy did not specifically include pagers. But the department made it clear to employees that it would treat text messages the same as e-mails. In other words, the city reserved the right to monitor network activity. Quon signed a statement acknowledging that he understood this policy.

The department's contract with the service provider covered a certain number of characters. For several billing cycles, the officer went over his allotted character limit. His manager informed him that he could review the messages. However, he said he would refrain from doing so as long as the officer paid the extra charges. The officer went over the character limit for several months. Management decided to review the messages to determine if the wireless contract should be changed. The service provider supplied copies of the messages. The messages contained many non-work-related, inappropriate messages.

The Supreme Court refrained from addressing the issue of whether the officer had an expectation of privacy when using the pager. The Court noted that the department made it clear that the pager was considered within the scope of the computer use policy. However, it recognized that whether an expectation of privacy existed was uncertain. This was because the officer's manager said that he would not review the pager's messages as long as the officer paid the overage. The Supreme Court stated:

A broad [ruling] concerning employees' privacy expectations [involving] employer-provided technological equipment might have implications for future cases that cannot be predictedThe judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clearAt present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law's treatment of them, will evolve.

The Supreme Court instead based its ruling on the reasonableness of the search. The Court concluded that the review of the text messages was reasonable in light of the work-related, non-investigatory purpose. The search was to determine the adequacy of the contract with the service provider. Also, the search was conducted in a reasonable manner. The Court saw the review of the messages as "an efficient and [appropriate] way to determine whether Quon's overages were the result of work-related messaging or personal use." It also said the search was not overly intrusive.

Based on both the article "Private! Keep Out!" and the Supreme Court case summary, evaluate the Supreme Court's reasoning. Do you think the ruling is just? Why or why not? Use information from the sources to support your answer.