Posted on 04/26/2010 4:17:17 PM PDT by Smogger
Cops break open front door and seize computers in investigation of lost iPhone prototype.
It looks like the police are taking this pretty seriously.
Armed with a search warrant, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team broke into a private home Friday night and seized computers and other electronic equipment, according to a report posted Monday on Gizmodo.
The home belonged to Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who published photographs and videos of a top secret prototype iPhone left at a bar by a young Apple engineer. Gizmodo has admitted paying $5,000 for the device, which it turned over on request to Apple (AAPL), but only after cracking it open and publishing details about its parts and specifications.
It's not clear at this time whether Apple or the local district attorney initiated the investigation. Apple has not replied to a request for clarification.
The search warrant, signed by a San Mateo County Superior Court judge, said the equipment seized may have been used to commit a felony.
"My wife and I drove to dinner and got back at about 9:45," begins Chen's description of the event. "When I got home I noticed that the garage door was half open, and when I tried to open it, officers came out and said they had a warrant to search my house and any vehicles on the property 'in my control.' Then they made me place my hands behind my head and searched me to make sure I had no weapons or sharp objects on me."
Photocopies of the warrant and a list of the equipment seized (including one box of business cards for "suspect chen") are available here. Chen's full statement below the fold.
(Excerpt) Read more at tech.fortune.cnn.com ...
And yes, you hear the MAJORITY of Chicago types saying "ignant".
It is time to turn the famous Apple commercial portraying IBM as Big Brother around on their heads. Someone needs to youtube that sucker after doctoring it up. How does Apple make this happen after the phone was returned? Especially so fast. You can’t get local law enforcement to move against a crack house that fast.
LOL ... if you had a crack house writing a big magazine article about the crimes they were committing in that house -- I bet you'd get the police down on them in no time flat! :-)
That's what got the criminal in the first place -- he bragged to the whole world in a big publication about his crime ...
I like to advise criminals (if they happen to be reading here... take note) -- don't brag about your crime by writing some big article and advertising to the world what you did... if so, you're just a stupid and dumb criminal... :-) ...
lol
Oh yeah. Clearly he was all consumed with destroying the evidence of his mysterious crime by: ...
Ummmm.., in case you haven't noticed, a lot of criminals are dumb and they also think they can "get away with it". Another fault that many criminals have is that they "brag" about their crimes.
It didn't help that this criminal bragged about his crimes in a big article that he wrote ... LOL ...
I understand what you are saying about copyright laws. As the mother of several aspiring artists I’ve researched the laws applicable to their work. Therefore, I am familiar with the possibility of a private citizen to bring a case claiming copyright infringement.
All I was trying to point out is that the California police agency that sought, and then executed the warrant may have indeed violated their own state statutes in doing so.
Again, despite the accent (Chicago standard) there are OTHER accents in the region, and they are used. Very typically many folks there DROP "of".
Try this.. Next time you lose your phone see if you can get a frigging task force whose mission statement reads: ...
Ummmm..., add to that ... and write a big article in some nationally read site that outlines and details the crime you've committed and act like you can get away with it ... LOL ...
That usually gets the attention of authorities real quick ... doncha know ... :-)
Innocent of what? Officers told him he wasn’t being arrested or detained.
Nope... they don't do that first. They get the evidence of the crime and then they arrest the guy. That's why they got that warrant from a judge for getting that equipment that they picked up. The equipment will provide them with the evidence needed for an arrest... doncha know...
But, the thing is, he already wrote about his crime so he pretty much hung himself... LOL ...
That protection slops off on the computer industry as well, and California has many laws beneficial to them on the books.
The blogger told his story, implicated himself, and the shield law that allows reporters to protect sources just doesn't do the job here. There is no source!
I think all Apple wants are all the photos of the equipment. Eventually we will discover that the cops acted on behalf of the victim.
Uh.. You can photograph the inside of your phone. Go ahead try it.
Yeah, if it's your phone... but I wouldn't try it with someone else's phone... doncha knonw ... :-)
She's a big taxpayer there.
Stolen property does not become "unstolen" just because it gets fenced.
In California, it also applies to lost property, too... and that's the crime here... you see... :-)
Whatever. It’s not even worth my time to argue with you about it. I lived there from when I was two years old, until my mid-20s and the ONLY time I’ve ever heard that supposed affectation was on the South Side. It’s hardly the way the “majority” of Chicagoans speak.
As far as knowing all about “you people in Chicago”. Keep your bigotry to yourself.
This is a civil not criminal action.
Well..., actually, in California, under their laws -- it happens to be criminal... and a felony, to boot...
The guy who found it tried to return it to the morons at Apple severals times.
Unfortunately for that guy, it doesn't change the law as it applies to him and the writer. If you think that someone is the owner and they tell you that they are not, then you have to find who the owner is.
Instead of doing that, he appropriated the device for himself, sold it and someone else appropriated the lost device for themselves and bought it.
Hence, the crime ... which it is, under California law... :-)
VERY interesting information if you follow the link to the supporting documents. It would appear that the search warrant is invalid because Chen is employed by Gawker as a JOURNALIST. California’s own laws may have been violated in carrying out this warrant and seizing property.
Even journalists commit crimes and that's what happened here. Journalists don't get a "get-out-of-jail-free card" -- just because they are journalists. I would like to see him apply that one when he's running a red light and speeds away from a pursuing cop ... LOL ...
The crime didn't have anything to do with his "journalism" -- it had to do with his criminal activity in buying a device that was lost and he appropriated the lost device for himself, and paid $5,000 for it.
Whatever he does in writing for the website and/or magazine -- is just fine. When he commits a crime, however, that's another matter... :-)
Possession of someone else's property without a good explanation of why you got it is pretty much evidence of participation in a theft to one degree or the other.
It's even more than that under California law, actually. If you appropriate the property for yourself, even if you didn't steal it but actually "found" it -- and sell it -- you've committed a crime...
That's the problem here... :-)
The article clearly states it was left at a bar.
The law that was violated and the crime that was committed, pertains to lost property... that's the problem here... :-)
Your bias is showing. This was not some random “blogger”. Chen is an employed journalist, and his “office” was raided.
Granted, there are several laws that seem to be at play here, with each party claiming “their” laws trump other laws. Chen (and his employer Gawker, Inc) will get their day in court, which is where it belongs.
The law cited by Gawker’s COO is not a simple “shield” law in regards to sources. There is very specific language in the California statute regarding the confiscation of a journalist’s computers, phones, cameras, etc...
There are many interesting facets to this case, which makes it “one to watch”. It’s clear that we aren’t going to solve anything arguing about it on FR. As I said, they will get their day in court, and I’ll be very interested in the arguments of lawyers on both sides. It’s going to be a very messy case.
Seems to me that if the guy tried to give it back and Apple wouldn’t take it, the phone was abandoned property. Where’s the theft?
That's not the way the law sees it in California. With the device being left behind, and thus lost to the owner, the finder is responsible to get it back to the owner or turn it in to someone who will get it back to the owner. If you think one person is the owner and find out that they say they are not the owner -- you still have to get it back to the owner (maybe not the one you "thought" was the owner) but you're going to have to get it back to the right one anyway -- or try to...
Now, under the law, if you appropriate the item for yourself, by selling it (as if you have the right to do so, which you don't under the law) -- then you've committed a crime. And in this case it's a felony.
There's the problem ... :-)
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.