Looks like Apple has reached out-of-court settlement with victim of ham-handed iPhone search

“It would seem that the missing iPhone prototype wasn’t ‘priceless,’ after all,” Paul McNamara reports for Network World. “Apple has apparently reached an out-of-court settlement to keep a San Francisco man [Sergio Calderon] from suing the company over what his attorney — and virtually everyone else — called an ‘outrageous’ warrantless search of the man’s home, car and computer last summer by two Apple employees accompanied by four city police officers.”

“Here’s why I say ‘apparently reached,'” McNamara reports. “In early December, the man’s then-talkative attorney, David Monroe, told CNET that settlement negotiations “have ended and we’re moving forward” with a lawsuit that would be filed within a few weeks. Monroe was not shy about explaining his client’s case to the press. Having heard nothing more in the subsequent four months, I called Monroe yesterday and asked if he could update me on the status of that lawsuit. ‘I have no comment about that,’ he replied.”

After two more “no comments,” “I was about to try a fourth round but by then we were both chuckling over the futility of the exercise.,” McNamara reports. “So you tell me: Does this sound like an attorney whose client has accepted a settlement that carries the common stipulation that neither he nor his lawyer will blab about it? …More than 24 hours later and no reply from Apple, not even a no comment.”

Much more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Source claims Apple pushed security chief out after lost iPhone prototype, subsequent actions – November 6, 2011
Apple contacts man whose home was searched by employees over missing iPhone prototype – October 27, 2011
Lost iPhone 5 update: Police assisted Apple investigators in search of San Francisco man’s home – September 3, 2011
Apple accused of impersonating police during effort to recover lost iPhone 5 prototype – September 2, 2011


    1. For the terminally dense:

      The story provides no meaningful information or evidence of progress relating to the case of the stolen prototype, which does relate to the extremely serious issue of unlawful search and seizure.

      The speculation here is fabricated on the basis of people saying “no comment” to somebody who would not be worth giving comment to if there were any comment to give in the first place.

  1. In an earlier article on the subject, it said:

    “Police have said a two-man Apple security team searched Calderon’s home and did not recover the phone,” McCullagh and Sandoval report. Monroe said police facilitated the search by telling Calderon they would obtain a search warrant if he didn’t submit to a search. Monroe said he believes police acted improperly by not identifying the Apple employees.”

    So, instead of telling the police to get a search warranty, he allowed them in. Apple employees, who knew what they were looking for, performed or help perform the search. This guy is going after Apple for this? I guess they have deeper pockets than SFPD. Apple employees have no authority over the guy – the police do. Seems like this clown and his lawyer are looking for some fast money.

  2. From what we know about the incident, the problem here was the police ALLOWING apparent Apple employees (whom I assume were dopey marketing reps trying to recover their dignity after losing the iPhone) to play at being policemen. Oops. The police broke the law here. The dopey Apple reps happily complied. CLEARLY this was a case of illegal search with no seizure. I can’t blame Calderon for suing, but he should have sued the local police.

  3. I wonder how many people here (who apparently have no problem with the highly unethical, if not illegal police tactics used in this instance) would be okay with it being done to them, if the corporation involved were Microsoft (or any other) instead of Apple.

    Not many, I’d wager.

    What is also is interesting is that so many have apparently no problem with the fact that this man had no involvement in the missing prototype.

    Whatever brought Apple and their police backup to his doorstep was obviously inaccurate. Highly so since they were wrong about the phone’s location and it appears the searchers didn’t engage in any warrantless searches of neighboring houses.

    Wasn’t the prototype using the same location tracking tech that the eventual production iPhone came with, or was it using some other, more accurate technology?

    I bring this up because 1) it’s obvious the prototype’s tech wasn’t very accurate, and 2) if the prototype and later production model were using the same tech, it would jibe with what Apple was saying about how less than exact their location tech was during that location tracking bru-ha-ha that outraged so many.

    My point here is that if their location tech is as inexact as Apple claims, then how could they say the prototype was that precise when they went to search his guy’s house… and then not attempt to search neighboring houses?

    And if the prototype was using some new tech, then why isn’t that new, more accurate tech in the current iPhone?

  4. If you cut me, I bleed Apple juice.

    But that doesn’t mean I support violating civil rights.

    The man is right to sue. He should sue Apple and he should sue the police.

    It’s a slippery slope when we allow our rights to be ignored, and it makes no difference who the culprit is.

    If you’re going to identify yourselves as police, and not everyone conducting the search is a cop, that should be clearly stated.

    He let them in; this has noting to do with them entering without a warrant.

    It has everything to do with the two Apple reps who were not identified as such.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.