Police Seize Gizmodo's Computers In iPhone Probe

http://news.cnet.com/ ^ | April 27, 2010 | Greg Sandoval and Declan McCullagh

[Ratman83]

I check the Code and agree with the statement.

” (g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.”

The judge and police are wrong.

[UCANSEE2]

It says the police raided the reporters’s home and took his computers.

Did they find the iPhone at his house?

[TNdandelion]

I had also heard that the guy that found it tried to return it Apple a couple times but no one took him seriously until it starting showing up on the internet. I wonder how that figures in to that law?

[The_Victor]

I had also heard that the guy that found it tried to return it Apple a couple times but no one took him seriously until it starting showing up on the internet. I wonder how that figures in to that law?

I would imagine the guy who originally found it is prolly off the hook. That also plays into Gizmodo's defense too. If it's no longer stolen/lost property after the guy who found it tried to return it, then Gizmodo didn't buy "stolen" goods.

I doubt that a jury will find for Apple in this case, but I'll also bet that a jury trial isn't Apple's point. They're just trying to intimidate anyone who might consider corp espionage.

[muawiyah]

Latest story is the guy who "found it" in the bar walked around asking other people if it belonged to them. He said he never contacted Apple.

I was thinking it quite strange that someone who found a lost iPhone would call Apple headquarters ~ as if they'd know anything in particular about any single iPhone ~ they've sold MILLIONS of them.

It probably wouldn't occur to most people to think twice about it ~ you still have to have it gimmicked up to get G4 or G3 service ~ and that's the expensive part.

There was an intermediary who is into technical stuff and he patched the finder over with the guy who "reviewed" the device.

There's the problem ~ the "reviewer" KNEW WHAT IT WAS!

Up until it got into the hands of the "reviewer" it doesn't look like anyone had criminal intent, or even had a reasonable belief that a crime could have happened. The finder even asked others nearby if they owned the device. I doubt the local cops would have understood what he was up to if he sought to have them hold it pending discovery of the true owner ~ they'd probably called for medical support to come and take the guy to the local mental health clinic in fact.

I'd say the "reviewer" is in some mighty big trouble because HE PAID FOR IT (against a California law) and HE OPENED IT UP (and didn't own it) and TOOK PHOTOS OF IT (which walks right into the problems presented by copyright law, and the US Constitution).