Skip to comments.Police raid Gizmodo editor's home
Posted on 04/26/2010 4:17:17 PM PDT by Smogger
click here to read article
Section 1070 of the Evidence Code is as follows: 1070. (a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public
Nothing in there about immunity for reporters buying lost or stolen property.
You are an Applebot, even if you posted that on an IBM PC!
LOL ... nope, no IBM PC here... :-)
But..., you're not one of those "journalists" who wants that "get-out-of-jail-free card" for committing any crime known to mankind, in order to write an article about it -- are you? LOL ...
Somehow I don't think they called the guy and told him they found his phone at the bar. Otherwise, they'd have gotten away with it. LOL!
Stop it right there: because that might lead to a “nuclear blueprint” analogy, and you can see where that leads . . . .
I’m waiting for the “constructive bailment” guy to show up again. That would’ve been humorous.
Dont lose focus, either. The rightful owner is the guy who left it at the bar, not the corporation he works for . . . some people just dont get it.
Well, that is a good point you've got there.
I'm not sure how "ownership" and being lost applies to a person who has been lent the device, temporarily (which the guy was lent the device temporarily). If that ends up legally changing ownership (per that law, anyway), then it's that guy (who lost it), who is the owner.
But, I'm not entirely sure about that. And actually, it doesn't make any difference the way I see it, because if you think the owner is one guy (or some company) and you're told they don't own it, then it's still a lost device and you still can't appropriate it for your own use, no matter what.
Remind me what that was about. Thanks.
Search this thread on that phrase... you’ll find it ... :-)
The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what stage of the production process the item is in, you can't call some 1-800 number located in Burkina Faso and then turn around and claim, "it's mine," when you know that it is not.
Very true... and good point...
I guess the writer doesn't have to tell anybody who he paid the $5000 to ~ but who cares ~ it's the photos that bother Apple if not the cops.
Wake up. Chicago is damaged goods. Flee for your very life from that place.
Didn’t say a person owns property they find that was misplaced. What I said is based on the facts and the law, a charge of theft cannot be supported. Didn’t say it didn’t have to be returned, just that having possession does not always equal theft. If it did, someone finding a wallet and picked it up with the intention of returning it would also be guilty of theft.
I've been thinking of a new Sonata. I think I'll pick it up at the Hyundai lot tonight.
There, I've published it on the net so that means I'm not stealing that Hyundai!./s
Hmmm. More popcorn eh!
I left a long time ago, but that’s not the point...
I was wondering if I was getting a bit of what our favorite necro-thread guy was suffering from.
Exactly... Popcorn will be a big necessity when this sees the inside of a courtroom! Should be very interesting to say the least.
Didnt say a person owns property they find that was misplaced. What I said is based on the facts and the law, a charge of theft cannot be supported.
Yes, it can be supported... the minute he sold it for $5,000 ... LOL ...
Didnt say it didnt have to be returned, just that having possession does not always equal theft. If it did, someone finding a wallet and picked it up with the intention of returning it would also be guilty of theft.
Selling lost property is theft (and it was sold for $5,000). And that can be applied to the person buying the lost property (and he bought it for $5,000).
If the original finder of the property had merely held onto it (and not done anything to appropriate the property for himself and/or sell it), then there wouldn't be a crime as it could be said that he was looking for the owner (of course, it would help to show that he was actually looking for the owner, like an ad in the paper, for example, a call to the police department to either have them hold it for whatever necessary time or so they could be made aware of the property).
BUT, that wasn't the case... and under California law, the seller committed a crime and the buyer committed a crime. I don't know if they've found the seller yet, though ... I'd lay real low if I were him ... LOL ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.