“The warrant says the computer and other devices may have been used to commit a felony,” AP reports.
Full article here.
Gizmodo states, “Last Friday night, California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered editor Jason Chen’s home without him present, seizing four computers and two servers. They did so using a warrant by Judge of Superior Court of San Mateo. According to Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media LLC, the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.”
Full article, with the search warrant, inventory of the seized material, Jason Chen’s account of the events, and more here.
The iPhone was stolen. Who finds a phone in a bar and leaves with it?
You give it to the bartender.
Gizmodo knew the thief did not rightfully obtain the phone, they new he had no right to sell it or transfer ownership.
Covering yourself in the cloak of “journalism” does not give the right to ignore the law.
Is this for real??
I think Gizmodo’s CEO’s letter to the police is ABSOLUTELY STUPID. Unbelievably amateur and dumb.
Can’t Gizmodo hire a real freaking LAWYER to work on this and write a letter to the District Attorney? This is ridiculous.
It is so STUPID that a non-lawyer CEO or any CEO for that matter would write a letter citing both legal statutes and caselaw. SO STUPID. And sending them to the police detective? What? He’s not even a lawyer! Is this a joke? SO STUPID.
This is really getting STUPID.
I’m done with Gizmodo. They are too stupid.
Giz — and this guy in particular — was so smug and so smarmy through this whole thing that it IS nice to see him served a little fear himself.
Maybe they should have thought before that snarky PS they tacked on to their letter back to Apple’s attorneys.
F Gizmodo!! I hope Apple drags their asses through the Courts until they and Gawker Media LLC are bankrupt! Douchebags!
I gotta side with and the law here. Giz was is full knowledge of their wrongdoing from the get go. How do you say “make an example out of them” in legaleze? Oh yeah, “make an example out of them!”
I also hope they track down the equally douchy guy who conducted the back alley sale of the iPhone to the Gizmodo sleaze-balls in the first place… Gizmodo better enjoy this media coverage while they have it because I guarantee you they won’t be covering anymore events in the future.
Based on a quick look at this, it appears that the warrant was overbroad and probably faulty under California laws that give shielding to journalists protecting their sources. So, in the case of the guy who stole the iPhone (defined as not turning it over to proper authorities, in accordance with California law), this sort of search should not have been conducted.
Shield laws do not prevent journalists from being prosecuted for breaking the law, however. Receiving stolen property is a crime, and the amount that was paid for this device alone indicates that the journalist(s) knew the item was stolen or at least appearing before them illicitly.
Again, though, the warrant seems overbroad in connection with this. However, it may not be invalidated if it’s clear that the crime the police are investigating in connection with this warrant is an allegation of wrongdoing on the journalist himself, ie., receipt of stolen property.
Some are looking at this as testing whether a blogger is a journalist under California’s shield laws, but it’s already been established, generally, that they are. But courts may see this search as valid in building a criminal case against the reporter for that alleged crime.
If they do, though, that could invalidate any evidence on those machines that goes to the guilt of the guy who stole the iPhone in the first place. It’s a tricky situation prosecutors will find themselves in, and this whole search could end up being a bad idea for that reason.
He’s toast! Couldn’t happen to a nicer schmuck
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
=:~)
“COO of Gawker Media LLC, the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.” what a dumb ass?? he does not know California Penal Code. The police had warrant from the judge. California Penal Code says if you buy stolen item ( you know it was stolen), it’s a crime.
Since when is a a purveyor of stolen goods a “journalistic source”?
LAME EXCUSE from Gizmodo and their smirky Chen.
Chen is co-responsible for committing a crime, and his equipment was seized not because police searched the source of information — they seized equipment to find Chen’s co-criminal.
@ Kirk – I would question the logic of your argumentation.
To all you mindless ones reveling in this over-the-top police action, remember the guy has not been found guilty yet. This could happen to you too. Whatever the guy did, he did it openly and there is no need for this ‘investigation’ of all his gear. If found guilty he can be punished. Are you all too thick to see what this represents?
They don’t need his gear to prove the iPhone was stolen. This is just one more example of the way things are going.
@REALTORben
1.) Where’s the substantiated proof the individual who found it contacted Apple to return it?
2.) According to California law, anyone who keeps a lost object [especially if there is clear evidence of its rightful owner] (the guy obviously knew the owner was Apple, otherwise why call Gizmodo at all?), can be accused of theft, unless they make a “reasonable attempt” to return the object to its owner.
The guy who “found it” is clearly guilty of theft. Therefore, the iPhone was stolen. Gizmodo received stolen property.
Alternatively, it may be said that Gizmodo is guilty of theft as they obviously knew the owner of THAT iPhone was Apple (otherwise why pay $5,000 for it?) and with their connections, could easily have returned it. Heck, being nearby, how hard would it have been to drive over to Infinite Loop when you know you have a “special” iPhone in your hands and Apple might “appreciate” it back.
The smarter guy would have taken pictures… THEN returned it. Must’ve been a windows nerd, LOL.
I can’t wait till something of yours is “found” and never returned.
@ REALTORben : are you dreaming or what?
The one who stole the iPhone did not try to return it to the owner — Apple engineer.
Story about thief trying to reach to Apple is just obvious made-up lie for the ignorant or manipulative ones to publish it as another lame excuse for Gizmodo and their mean Chen.
@Truth
I’m not condoning the act, if you wish read my comment again. I’m just tickled by it and enjoying this silly mess unfold. I could care less about what happens to Gizmodo or Jason Chen and the lawyers working behind the scenes.
Sure, if Gizmodo had serious evil intents, they probably could have published the images only (citing unnamed protected sources), without ever admitting that they had the actual hardware in possession and had passed it along quietly to the guys who were involved with the Foxconn incident last year, maybe.
Anyway, a judicial process is now underway, and I don’t have any opinions on that either way. All I’m suggesting is, harbouring hatred against Gizmodo might be a tad over reaction by Apple fans.
MDN MW: ‘girls,’ really??
It would have been one thing if Gizmodo took some external pics of this “alleged” prototype that someone else found. But instead, they paid $5K (showing they knew it wasn’t rightfully owned) and then took it apart.
I WILL SAY IT IN BOLD:
1) JASON CHEN SHOULD BE JAILED (along with the one who stole the phone initially) AND PERSONALLY BANKRUPTED;
2) GAWKER MEDIA AND THEIR WHOLE GIZMODO TABLOID SHOULD BE BANKRUPTED.
@zek-
Yeah, we should just trust all the thieves of the world. Because only the “mindess” & “thick” would have the gall to doubt a thief’s word at face value. great argument, though, for your fear that someone’s going to come to your home and find your terabytes of kiddie porn.
finders keepers loosers weepers
We can Gizmodo goodby?
Hehe getit?
This is not the first time the COO, Chief OPERATING Officer, has weighed in on legal issues. She is a lawyer, but has no standing in this case, and should just shut up. She was the idiot that told Denton it was okay to offer the $5k to begin with, now she’s trying to justify her first mistake with another. Don’t they have a REAL legal counsel on staff?
Very funny.
If he is protected as a journalist as some claim then I’m gonna start a blog and go on a crime spree, detailing my adventures for the whole world to see. It will be fine though because I will be a protected journalist, above the law. Then when those horrible police officers raid my place, invade my privacy and human rights with a warrant signed by a judge I will sue them all, claiming I am a victim.
In the process I will get hundreds of thousands, if not millions of supporters donating $$ to my fund. Then I will write a book, and start a reality TV show criticizing and taunting the government while living safely outside it’s borders.
This is exciting!
@Don’t Click:
The link is to a Yahoo Finance page, not Gizmodo.
Sheesh. I think that, had this been a MS device, or a Google device, or anything but an Apple device, Jason would be a hero and there would be calls for justice and a free press.
I am a long time Mac, iPhone, and so on user, but also someone who would like to limit police power in this country, and certainly limit the use of police power in the pursuit of corporate interests.
But, then, hypocrisy is never a sin at MDN. Wow. Almost a rhyming slogan.
I wouldn’t credit this to Apple, nor blame them for it. This is part of what Police do – investigate criminal acts. For those thrown to think Apple is behind this, consider: If you were accosted or worse, do you think the police will ask you how to run the investigation? This is the criminal investigation. Please withhold the Apple castigation until (when or if) a civil suit occurs.