MacDailyNews Note: According to everyone involved, the police had a search warrant.
The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal continues, “Wired on Tuesday reported about a visit by people who said they represented Apple to the home of a college age person who is said to have found the iPhone at a Redwood City beer garden. Wired didn’t name the purported finder nor the source who it identified as somebody involved in the find.”
MacDailyNews Take: iPhone OS 4’s latest undocumented feature unmasked: Find My Top-secret, In-disguise, Fourth-generation, Beer-soaked iPhone.
The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal reports, “The source said the purported Apple representatives were turned away from the Silicon Valley home of the finder after asking for permission to search the premises. The San Mateo County district attorney’s office said on Tuesday they have identified and interviewed the person who took the iPhone from the Gourmet Haus Staudt in Redwood City on March 18. Police say they became involved in the matter after lawyers representing Apple reported the iPhone as having been stolen.”
“Wired said its source also disputed characterizing the $5,000 paid by Gizmodo.com as a sale. Instead it is said to was an agreement for exclusivity,” The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal reports. “‘It was made very explicit that Gizmodo was to help the finder return the phone to its rightful owner or give it back,’ the source reportedly said. ‘Gizmodo said they could help restore the phone [to its owner].’ Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple last week after dismantling it and publishing stories, photos and video about it.”
More info and links int he full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “JES42” for the heads up.]
Agreement for exclusivity? Yeah try selling that one in court.
Not stolen huh?
You lost me at “police broke into the home”….
TT, the owner was not at home when the police entered the premises. Even if the door were left open, they had no inherent “right” to enter the property. Ergo, they “broke in”. Their warrant, in theory, gave them the legal right to do so.
Macromancer, that could be a tough sell. But, they could squeek by with it. The woman(?) who picked it up could, with such an explanation, claim she was attempting to return the item to its owner. Not significantly different from passing it to the bartender for no money. I, like you, am skeptical of this explanation.
“Oh, but Officer, I merely paid this kind, Samaritan-Finder, $5,000, to help this Paragon-of-Goodness to return this phone to its rightful owner!
Uh, with exclusivity!
Yeah!”
Generally speaking, when I drop good money on something, I fully expect to be the exclusive owner as well.
pssst…
I have this car that I, umm.., found – ya FOUND! on the street. I ain’t sellin’ it to you, but gimme 5 grand for your exclusive use of it for a while… and of course you’ll help me find the real owner, right?
How does “exclusivity” (which is totally a ploy by giz to get off the sale of stolen property charges) allow you to DISMANTLE someone else’s property???
Need a search warrant? There’s an app for that.
This story sounds preposterous. Apple asked to search the guy’s home? Please..
I don’t think this whole story makes Apple look very good.
cops can do anything now
anything
don’t you know we live in a police state?
I’m a schmuck and know an Apple prototype is top secret – so Gizmodo NOT knowing is crap. They purposely thieved Apple’s Intellectual Property which they may sell to others – corporate espionage is more like it. Buying it is bad enough – but dismantling and photographing the interior is way more than journalism. It’s shameful. I’m no fan of Microsloth or Gaggle but at least I would give them some courtesy of not destroying their prototype product, that was a sucker move Giz pulled. They should have the book thrown at them.
$3 for a beer at a garden.
$5,000 received for a lost & found item.
$10,000 lawyer fees to keep out of jail.
Priceless.
A. Turn in an item to the establishment where it was found.
B. If not trusting, to the corporate store of the cell carrier.
C. Try a law enforcement agency. If, not claimed then you can claim it.
D. If believed to be Apple prototype, a law enforcement agency detective and explain it may be Steve’s property and you fear him more than the police. Follow it up later and if Steve does not claim it. Ask to claim it.
But, an iPhone prototype burning a hole in someone’s pocket may be incinerating another person’s peaceful and below the radar life.
I wonder if Gizmodo and the original thief communicated and fabricated the “not sold, only exclusive story ” b.s. after the shit hit the fan?
“Even if the door were left open, they had no inherent “right” to enter the property. Ergo, they “broke in”. Their warrant, in theory, gave them the legal right to do so.”
WTF?
OK, what did I miss? Was the phone stolen or was it found? If it was found and not stolen then what is the crime?
The car analogy is good, however, dont we often find and keep things ourselves?
Is it really stolen just because it was not turned into the “lost and found”?
$3 for a beer? Do you live under a rock composing inane posts?
DLMeyer;
No, a warrant does not grant police the rights to enter a citizen’s home “in theory”. It is an inherent right as part of the warrant process. Once the police have a valid warrant in hand, they DO have the right to enter, even if the owner/occupant is not home.
Of course, lawyers can argue (and do, incessantly) as to whether that warrant may be valid or not, but that is AFTER the fact.
If a competent court holds that warrant to have been procured under false pretenses, the cure is to disallow any and all evidence found under that warrant.
But the police DO have the right to enter using that warrant. And the California shield law does NOT confer immunity on journalists suspected of violating the law themselves. Which is why Gizmoto is trying to spin that $5000 as a payment for exclusivity and not a payment for purchase of the phone.
Sounds like the roommate is spinning this to get shield law protection for the ‘source’ no?
I say he was never a legit source worth protecting. It’s stolen goods and industrial espionage.
@ maclouie,
In California, keeping something you find is stealing.
Now you know.
For the last time this is not a police state, now up against the wall mofo, and don’t call me a red necked pig or I’ll kill you and squeal while I do it.
Magic word is make, as in make me an offer I can’t refuse.
This isn’t a big surprise. I think everyone’s forgetting the “Find My iPhone” feature of MobileMe. Apple could move a lot faster to go to the guy’s house and ask for the iPhone back. Nothing wrong with that. The guy said no when Apple asked if they could look for the iPhone.
The police did not “break in.” They had a valid search warrant, which gives them the right to enter the premises and search it, whether someone is home or not. If that means actually breaking a lock to enter, they can do so, but it is not “breaking in.” They entered lawfully; “breaking in” is entering unlawfully.
so Gizmodos defense becomes clear.
“Look we paid 5000 for the right to return the device to its rightful owner – before it was returned we documented the device we found – there was no law broken because we found the device and returned it – since it was found we have the right to report about it”
interesting tactic…