Police Raid Gizmodo Editor's Home Over Iphone-May Have Violated Shield Law In Process - Polidicks

[url]http://gizmodo.com/5524843/[/url] [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-search-warrant-ambiguous-police-may-allege-that-gizcommitted-felony-2010-4[/url] [url]http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/iphone-leak-investigation-on-hold-as-da-ponders-gizmodo-shield-law-defense/[/url] [QUOTE]Online journalists are freaking out that California police appear to have ignored California's shield law when breaking into Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's house and seizing his computers in connection with the iPhone probe. Gawker Media LLC, meanwhile, is arguing that CA police violated the shield law and is demanding immediate return of the confiscated property. And if, indeed, the police broke into Chen's house to determine the identity of the Gizmodo source who provided the possibly stolen iPhone, it would appear that the police trampled all over the shield law. However... The search warrant is ambiguous about the specific reason the police gave for the search and seizure. Specifically, it's possible--likely, even--that the police believe Gawker Media committed the felony by acquiring the iPhone ("buying stolen property"). If that's the "probable cause" the police used to obtain the warrant, the journalist shield law may not apply. The police got the warrant by arguing their belief that property at Jason Chen's house met the following criteria : * It was used as the means of committing a felony * It tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person committed a felony So now the question is... Was the suspected "felony" the THEFT of the iPhone (in which case police want to find out the identity of the thief)? Or was it BUYING STOLEN PROPERTY (in which case Gawker Media and/or Jason Chen may soon be accused of felonies?) Read more: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-gizmodo-search-warrant-ambiguous-police-may-allege-that-gizcommitted-felony-2010-4#ixzz0mIgJH0qt[/url] [/QUOTE]

Good. Now they know how it feels to be publicly humiliated, just as they did to the Apple employee that lost the phone.

[img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/v.gif[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=ketchup;21585382]Good. Now they know how it feels to be publicly humiliated, just as they did to the Apple employee that lost the phone.[/QUOTE] Finders, keepers. [sp]Losers, weepers.[/sp] [editline]03:51AM[/editline] Also, you misspelled "shield."

Apple pressured them to do it, I'm fairly sure.

Apple got the police on they're payroll lols.

Just when we thought Apple could not get dumber...

Apple trying to be all tough shit after they lost something. And in Cali. Cali, you're slippin' v:v:v

[QUOTE=Tudd Fudders;21585451]Apple got the police on [b]their[/b] payroll lols.[/QUOTE] :downs: Ontopic: He got what he deserved, He should have returned it.

Does that merit a raid for a prototype?

[QUOTE=dvondrake;21590650]Thought the Gizmodo guy bought it from someone who found it, which is the knowing purchase of stolen goods--a crime.[/QUOTE] Except it would be hard to prove that he new it was stolen when he bought it.

[QUOTE=dvondrake;21590650]Thought the Gizmodo guy bought it from someone who found it, which is the knowing purchase of stolen goods--a crime.[/QUOTE] The police wouldn't normaly go and get a warrant and everything for that, it's too small a a time waster. Apple obviously paid someone to get it done.

I don't know why Apple got upset, he was willing to return it and they got a nice free press release from a popular site that was entirely positive. They should be more worried up fixing up that leaky ship they're floating on.

[QUOTE=Vaught;21590732]Does that merit a raid for a prototype?[/QUOTE] That's what I was thinking.

[QUOTE=coolrider102;21590731]:downs: Ontopic: He got what he deserved, He should have returned it.[/QUOTE] They DID return it. Its funny that Apple is one of the 25 companies that form a "steering" committee for this React thing.

No one bothers to follow protocol?

An apple a day gets the police knocking on your door.

[QUOTE=MachiniOs;21592623]No one bothers to follow protocol?[/QUOTE] Of course not, don't be silly. Its much cooler just to be a badass like in the movies. Also the amount of spelling mistakes on the warrant's inventory (Its on Gizmodo) is funny. I wonder if they make the evidence invalid.

[QUOTE=:smug:;21593227]An apple a day gets the police knocking on your door.[/QUOTE] What.. that made no sense.

I bet he's going to have a bunch of pirated files on his PC.

[QUOTE=Jsm;21592541]They DID return it. Its funny that Apple is one of the 25 companies that form a "steering" committee for this React thing.[/QUOTE] They returned it, sure. Only after they ruined one guy's reputation completely, and made a shit load of money leaking it out.

[QUOTE=ketchup;21594282]They returned it, sure. Only after they ruined one guy's reputation completely, and made a shit load of money leaking it out.[/QUOTE] You're saying that humiliation is worth searching a guys house for? [editline]05:24PM[/editline] Oh wait, according to your earlier post, you are. Here, have a box.

This whole thing is just stupid. The iPhone wasn't stolen, it was found lost at a bar. The guy even waited for the Apple dev (though at the time it was disguised as a 3GS, so he didn't know it was a prototype) to come back and get it and even asked everyone there if it belonged to them. The guy never came back, so it was finder's keepers. After discovering what it was, Gawker paid to look at it with full intentions of returning it to Apple. Before they even went public with it, they made multiple inquiries to Apple about returning it. Apple didn't respond, so they released their pictures and info of it. It was only after that happened did Apple go "hey, give it back", which was promptly complied with. Apple's just being a poor sport about all this. They had their chance to get it back before it was revealed on Gizmodo, but they didn't take it. Now they're trying to find ways to press charges against the people involved when it's their own fault. You snooze, you lose, Apple.

[QUOTE=Shugo;21598498]They had their chance to get it back before it was revealed on Gizmodo, but they didn't take it.[/QUOTE] But nobody knows how much time Apple actually had. Not to mention, Apple's support has to dig through hundreds to thousands of letters and calls every day. Gizmodo could have given them a hour to a day to a week. It was not right for Gizmodo to take action before receiving a reply so that they could make a shitload of money off ad revenue and traffic. It was also stated that none of the support staff had heard anything about a prototype being stolen. Apple wasn't really given a fair chance.

Well whoever took said prototype into the open, and lost it, is keeping his/her mouth shut. Probably in fear.

How do we know Apple didn't [i]plant[/i] the phone at the bar :tinfoil: In other news, since Apple is so huge, they probably could just wave a couple of bucks, and the whole story will be wrapped up in a pretty little case no one will hear about. But honestly, that was a bit extreme. Why not a nice phone call asking him to give the phone back?

I can see why apple would be pissed, I mean their products sell mostly based on hype, they gather a lot of people and toss hints at what they could be releasing, people get excited then bam they hit you with the product and create a lot of hype and demand. That is their usual plan on marketing their products, and all of a sudden the first person to show you the 4g is this random asian kid on YouTube.

Wah I did something wrong and the Police came to my house to recover the item I had took waaahhhhh

I hope Apple ends up suing Gawker Media. Oh hey let's buy stolen property and then dismantle it without permission. Derp.

[QUOTE=Hezzy;21607519]Wah I did something wrong and the Police came to my house to recover the item I had took waaahhhhh[/QUOTE] Far as I can tell, they already gave it back, and the warrant was for evidence that he had it or something like that.