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or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.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so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
(c) As used in this section, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been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.
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.
Hmmm. More popcorn eh!