According to the arguments put forth by Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal before the US Supreme Court on Monday, employees cannot expect privacy rights when they use official devices – like computers and mobile handsets - for sending personal messages, even though they may be paying for the service.

Noting that employers often tell workers they have no right to privacy when they use workplace computers and mobile phones, Katyal said no employee can claim a “reasonable expectation of privacy” if his emails and text messages are read later.

The arguments by Katyal come in the wake of the case of an Ontario, California police officer, Sgt. Jeff Quon, whose sexually explicit messages – sent from his official pager - to his girlfriend were read by his department.

Incidentally, while the department’s written policy clearly warns the employees that they “should have no expectation of privacy;” an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant said employees could expect privacy if they paid more than the monthly maximum charge.

The case prompted the high court to initiate the first-ever review of whether the Constitution-granted protection for privacy extends to workplace devices.

With Chief Justice Roberts holding the opinion that that Sgt. Quon could have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, it is likely that the ruling in the case will be a limited one, providing little guidance to government and private employers.