Posted on 04/26/2010 4:17:17 PM PDT by Smogger
...unless you are in Europe and then can claim “innocent buyer” status. Then in europer you can claim legal ownership. This is why you have tranaction rooms in certain airports in europe.
He was in California and under California law, that's a crime and it's a felony in this case.
First, read the California statute. This is not “my” argument it’s the argument of Chen’s employer and THEIR lawyers.
Your comparison of gathering information and reporting it with running a red light is frankly, just plain absurd.
One thing I thought of in relation to this supposed crime... Who exactly paid for the phone? Was it Chen the citizen, or was it Chen the agent for the Gawker company? And, how do we know the information sought is in regards to actually charging CHEN with a crime.
As the police officers who served the warrant stated HE was not being arrested, or detained at ALL. It sounds to me like they wanted his computers to try to figure out who sold the phone. It is possible that APPLE doesn’t want Chen charged, but are instead trying to build a case against the employee who supposedly “lost” the phone in the first place...
There are too many unanswered questions in this case. Everything we are discussing here is speculation. For us to try to figure out who is right or wrong in this case without having ALL the information is a little ridiculous, IMHO.
Lost iPhone prototype spurs police probe
April 23, 2010 12:11 PM PDT
by Greg Sandoval and Declan McCullaghSilicon Valley police are investigating what appears to be a lost Apple iPhone prototype purchased by a gadget blog, a transaction that may have violated criminal laws, a law enforcement official told CNET on Friday.
Apple has spoken to local police about the incident and the investigation is believed to be headed by a computer crime task force led by the Santa Clara County district attorney's office, the source said. Apple's Cupertino headquarters is in Santa Clara County, about 40 miles south of San Francisco.b
...
The purpose of an investigation is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to file criminal charges. Spokesmen for Santa Clara County and San Mateo County--home to the Redwood City bar--declined to comment.
...
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
[ ... more at the link ... ]
The California law ...
CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485
One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.
Our legal system takes middle aged women with 5 kids who recorded a few dozen songs on their home computers and hits them with multi million dollar judgments.
The perp here admitted dismantling the piece of property which he knew was NOT HIS and taking photos of it ~
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 says: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
EXCLUSIVE means EXCLUSIVE. It doesn't mean you can take the guy's invention before he offers it for sale, dismantle it, take photos, and then publish that information for all and sundry.
This is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue of the highest order. It's one of the clauses inside the main body of the Constitution, not some amendment tacked on like an afterthought!
Before this is over the writer will say something like "I'd have preferred to be flensed".
One thing I thought of in relation to this supposed crime... Who exactly paid for the phone? Was it Chen the citizen, or was it Chen the agent for the Gawker company? And, how do we know the information sought is in regards to actually charging CHEN with a crime.
I don't think it makes too much difference if you're committing a crime.
For instance, was it Chen the citizen or Chen the agent who downloaded kiddie porn, since he was writing about kiddie porn in an article?
Was it Chen the citizen or Chen the agent who robbed the liquor store, since he was writing about thefts at liquors stores in the city from the perspective of the criminals?
Was it Chen the citizen or Chen the agent who broke into Apple's labs and stole the iPhone prototype, so he could inform the world about what Apple was coming out with next? [just a theoretical example...]
And again, was it Chen the citizen or Chen the agent who broke the law and purchased lost property, that was either known or even not known to belong to Apple? [see the law up above... :-) ...]
As the police officers who served the warrant stated HE was not being arrested, or detained at ALL. It sounds to me like they wanted his computers to try to figure out who sold the phone.
That's what you do when you're gathering evidence and before you arrest someone. You see what the evidence is, and when you have it, you arrest them... :-)
There are too many unanswered questions in this case. Everything we are discussing here is speculation.
I don't see even a little bit of speculation here. The guy wrote about his crime and basically admitted it himself. It was someone's lost property (it doesn't matter who it belonged to) and he bought it -- that's a violation of the law and a felony violation...
Not too much speculation there... LOL ...
Ask Obama. He's one of 'em. Typical of so many, he was born somewhere else but gravitated to the pit of all corruption like a moth to a light.
No, you have met SOME people who are from Chicago and have formed your opinion of ALL Chicagoans based upon your interaction with a small number of the more than 10 MILLION people who live in the Greater Chicagoland Area.
If I were to say that based upon some of my interactions with a handful of folks in Indiana who are idiots, that ALL people who lived in Indiana are uneducated hick farmers that would make me a bigot. There is no difference in what you have said regarding “all” Chicagoans.
As far as now bringing Obama into the picture, what are you trying to prove? You start out by implying that Chicagoans are unfamiliar with proper English, and now you are implying that all Chicagoans are involved in political corruption?
Again, keep your bigotry to yourself.
The issue here is whether the journalist may skate (and he might, under California law). But the guy who sold something that does not belong to him? Different issue, that (clearly) some do not understand.
You do not address the fact that someone made several attempts to return it without success and the Gizmodo guy did return it.
Also, please cite the statute and case law that supports your position.
The issue here is whether the journalist may skate (and he might, under California law).
I know about that law, since I had been reading about it before -- but I don't think it shields journalists who commit crimes. That's what I see as the issue here.
It's one thing to write "about" a crime and write "about" someone committing a crime and even write "about" what is trade secret of some kind (having been told about it or given photos of it). But, when the journalist actually commits the crime himself -- in addition to writing about the crime he committed -- I don't think that law will protect such a journalist... :-)
All you have to do is think that one through to the logical end, if courts decided to apply such an understanding to all journalists. That would mean that all they had to do, in order to freely and without liability, commit a crime (of basically any kind at all) is to be writing a story about it in some way, fashion or manner, and publish it... LOL ...
That would be a great "great-out-of-jail-free card" for a journalist to be totally and completely above the law on anything they write about... what a deal! I would become a journalist then and write about stealing new cars so to have a new car every year!
I think calling Apple on at least two occasions is a reasonable effort to return the property. Furthermore it does not appear that anyone “used” the property.
If you know even the basic rules of statutory construction, these are just two facts that would preclude a charge of theft in this case.
On top of that, the Gizmodo guy did return the property to Apple.
The argument is that they DID try to return the property to the rightful owner. Even Apple CLEARLY admits that they refused return of the property that THEY owned. They WERE the rightful owners, they were contacted, and then REFUSED return. Again this is not argued about by the officials at APPLE. Unlike some state it wasn’t some 1-800 operator in India that they contacted.
BTW: Here is the California Code that the COO of Gawker is stating applies in this case (referencing that a copy of his letter has been sent to the company’s counsel).
CA Penal Code: 1524(g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.
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.
(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(c) As used in this section, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
****
Again this is not MY argument, it’s merely what Gawker’s lawyers are stating should apply in this case in regards to the warrant served. As I said, it will be interesting to see what the courts decide, and what the lawyers argue in this case.
buying a found item and attempting to return it to the rightful owner is a crime?
You do not address the fact that someone made several attempts to return it without success and the Gizmodo guy did return it.
It's not relevant for lost property. If you attempt to return some lost property to a person (or a company, if you will...) and they say, "It's not ours, don't bother us with it!" -- then you obviously know you don't have the owner of the property, or at least they've told you that they are not the owner.
But, that doesn't make you the new owner now. No, you still have to make some effort at finding the owner. What many people do in a case like this (and I've heard of others doing this, too...), is you contact the police and notify them of some lost property and say that if no one claims it after whatever length of time that they require, then you'll take the property for yourself. Once that is done and if you've not been able to find the owner -- then you can take possession of it.
What you can't do, it take possession of it right now, if you are not the owner. And furthermore, in California, you can't sell lost property. That's illegal (unless you become the owner of it later on, after whatever time the police tell you that you'll have to wait).
In addition to that, if the writer (of that publication) bought the lost property, understanding that it was lost -- he's immediately in violation of that California law and it's a felony, too.
So, it's not going to go well for that writer either ... LOL ...
Also, please cite the statute and case law that supports your position.
See Post #184 ...
BS. Please cite the statute and case law that supports the transfer of title because someone called a 1-800 number.
buying a found item and attempting to return it to the rightful owner is a crime?
The minute he paid for it, he committed a crime... so that's one thing right there -- right off the bat... before he even says "boo!"...
Then the next thing is -- if the owner requests the property back (having found out that this guy has it, which wasn't too hard since he wrote a big article about it ... LOL ...) -- then if he doesn't return it upon their request (which they did request it back from him) -- then that guy would have committed another crime... and fortunately he didn't commit another crime in that instance.
However, it's enough to get him in the slammer that he committed the first crime, right off the bat... :-)
See Post #184 ...
BS. Please cite the statute and case law that supports the transfer of title because someone called a 1-800 number.
LOL ... fortunately California law recognizes that's not the case, which is why it's worded the way it is ... :-) ...
And some people just "don't get it" sometimes...
See Post #184 ...
Don’t lose focus, either. The rightful “owner” is the guy who left it at the bar, not the corporation he works for . . . some people just don’t get it.
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.