Police Seize Computers From Gizmodo Editor

secretcurse writes "California police have served a search warrant and seized computers from Jason Chen, the Gizmodo editor who unveiled the 4th-generation iPhone to the world. Gawker Media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served illegally due to Mr. Chen's status as a journalist. The plot thickens..."

Comments

Time Warner 1, Little blog network 0

[LostCluster]

enGadget is owned by Time Warner... they have lawyers, and those lawyers told them not to touch this story.

Gawker apparently didn't check before the leaped... and Apple's got much bigger bucks than they do.

Re:Time Warner 1, Little blog network 0

[Space cowboy]

Some mice have evidence, yes.

I recall reading about a mouse that recorded (internally) what it did and could replay it later. Probably not the mouse that Chen owns, but hey, why not include the clause ? :)

I'm also not sure why you think passwords have any greater protection than anything else when the police have a court-granted right to search, but hey, I'm not a lawyer either.

Simon

Re:Journalist?

[LostCluster]

Read the Gawker Media response... they're claiming that Jason Chen's home was a "newsroom" and therefore exempt from contempt changes and warrents. We'll see if this holds water when they try to get any evidence from this search kept away from the jury.

Re:Journalist?

[SatanicPuppy]

Newspaper offices aren't exempt from crap. They're out of their minds. (disclaimer: sitting in a newspaper office right now)

Historically, whenever a journalist has been jailed for not ratting out a source, the cops have pulled all their stuff right off their desks. There is no legal exemption just because you happen to work for a media outlet.

Just give us a name

[nobodyman]

Apple was being too quiet last week. I knew the other shoe would drop, it was just a matter of time. If Chen is lucky, the police are really more interested in the identity of the thief (if they don't know it already).

However, my guess is that the police are trying to build a strong case that Giz definitely knew it was stolen prior to paying $5000 for the device. Not sure who goes down in a situation like that: whether it's Jason Chen or Nick Denton.

Re:Just give us a name

[GameMaster]

Actually, from what I understand, California law states that it is illegal for someone to find something off the street, take it as their own, and then sell it (in other words, what I've heard is that there is no "finders keepers" right in California, at least if you don't bother to let the police look for the true owner first). Supposedly, it becomes extra illegal if you have good reason to believe that it's owned by someone else but don't try to return it (of which there is, supposedly, no evidence in this case). As should be common sense, since it's illegal to sell something you found if you have reason to believe it belongs to someone then it's also illegal to buy something from someone when you have reason to believe they aren't the legal owner. In this case, both the person selling it and Gizmodo had every reason to believe that the phone was the rightful property of Apple. In fact, the only reason their story could be considered newsworthy was if it had left the possession of Apple unintentionally. It seems, to me, like a slam dunk that Gizmodo broke the law. They're trying to defend themselves by claiming that they have a right to gather news from anonymous sources based on a previous court case but this is totally different from the case I heard about. In the previous case I heard mentioned, the news agency only received information, not property and didn't even pay money for it. As far as I can see, both of those are major differences that make comparing the two cases like comparing apples and oranges. We'll see how this goes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up spending some time in California "pound me in the ass" prison.

Re:Just give us a name

[Sparr0]

Apple is a corporation. It has personhood, and if any part of the company disclaimed ownership of the device then the whole company did so. The fact that its left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing is their fault, not his.

Re:Just give us a name

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Jason Chen appears to be in a "What did you know and who told you it?" situation where he isn't supplying the identity of his source... because this isn't a source of information but a source of stolen goods.

Among the many problems with your statement are the following:

1) The items in question were not stolen. According to the news coverage, not only did the person who found the phone, FIND it in a public place (which by definition can not be a theft, at least in the State of California). He then attempted to give it to Apple. Apple then said "not ours, we don't want it."

2) Under California State law, journalistic actions have many protections. The State can not force a journalist to reveal information pertaining to a source. The State can not confiscate goods relating to the distribution of news. The State can not prosecute a journalist who acted in the interest of journalism who acted good faith (with some non-related exceptions).

Lastly it does amuse me greatly that everyone who states "XXX person committed a felony by purchasing stolen goods" has just committed libel. Congratulations, you have now given XXX the option of filing suit against you for defamation of character with one of very few acts that do not require proof of monetary harm. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Re:Just give us a name

[pacergh]

I don't throw around legal terms as if I know what they mean. I do know what they mean.

Unlike you, I'm not a paralegal. I'm a lawyer. Not a California lawyer, but a lawyer in another state.

You may think you know what it means, but all you're doing is showing why paralegals aren't attorneys.

I'm sorry you're embarrassed for being shown up so thoroughly that you have to sling insults around. But, let me break it down for your paralegal mind:

The "bold" section of what you cite places a reasonableness standard on the finder. The question is whether a reasonable person in the finder's situation would have acted as the finder did in trying to find the owner and give him back his property.

You may remember from your expansive legal background that this is the so-called "reasonable person" standard.

The question is whether the evidence at hand supports a finding by the jury that the finder did or did not act reasonably in trying to contact the owner. The burden will likely be beyond a reasonable doubt.

You, in your paralegal mind, seem to think this is a simple case of matching facts to elements. It is not.

Each fact will carry its own weight for each juror. Clearly, if you were a juror, you would put a lot of weight on the finder's attempt to contact Apple. To you, that satisfies the statutory requirement.

Obviously, others disagree with you. Others believe he should have called the bar. Or given it to the bar staff. Or given it to the police.

What is clear is that, based on the sparse facts we have, there is sufficient evidence on both sides to support the two possible conclusions: (1) he acted reasonably, (2) he acted unreasonably.

Which is why a potential charge is likely to be sustained. To translate for your paralegal mind: they could take this to a jury to decide.

So, while this guy has arguments that he did act reasonably, a prosecutor also has arguments that he did not act reasonably.

I hope this helps you understand WTF you're talking about, since obviously you didn't before.

Actually, there is a lot of harm to apple...

[nweaver]

Do you think ANYONE is going to buy a 3G or 3GS iPhone in the next few months, with the "V4 is in final prototype, it has a much better screen, a flash, a front camera, etc" on everybody's lips?

The value of the existing stock of iPhones easily dropped $50 a phone thanks to this, a price drop which would have been postponed by a month or two if this leak didn't happen.

This is why apple is so leak paranoid: leaks like this really contribute to the Osborne Effect

Re:Actually, there is a lot of harm to apple...

[dustin_0099]

People still believe the Osborne Effect???

These days, it's a given that any tech gadget that comes out has a V.Next well under way.

iPad 2 is already half way done. Nexus 3 is being written as we speak. Office 2012 is being worked on.
If you are buying an iPhone today, your first question is "When did the last version come out?"

The first segment of the wiki page is all about THE MYTH for intertube's sake!

Re:Corporations vs. Individuals (privacy)

[tekrat]

Just like corporations expect privacy, and individuals are told that we should have no expectation of privacy. Too bad we can sue TRW for providing every creditor in the world our "trade secrets".

America has gone the wrong way. Even the tea party movement has it wrong. We don't need to fear and change the government, we need to fear and change the power corporations have over us.

Re:Illegal search - not.

[gyrogeerloose]

You forgot to read this part:

but this provision shall not impair or affect the ability of any government officer or employee, pursuant to otherwise applicable law, to search for or seize such materials, if--

(1) there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate...

Since there is probable cause to believe Chen received stolen property, the San Mateo County Sheriff is in the clear.

Apple is worthless to deal with

[Groo Wanderer]

I have tried to deal with Apple on a number of occasions, every time it was not something I HAD to do, but something I felt obliged to do. I dutifully called them up, recorded the process, recorded the messages I left (try to get a real person there, I dare you!), and gave them more then enough time to get back to me (several days). I also left the same message on a number of relevant voice mails.

Apple just won't deal with you, they are Apple, and you are beneath them. If you are not a known kiss-up, they won't return your calls, emails, or anything else. Try, don't try, it doesn't matter, they won't get back to you. Insiders have told me that this is policy, not a fluke.

What did I contact them about? This:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1049921/inquirer-confirms-apple-macbook-pros-have-nvidia-bad-bump-material
Nope, no calls back. Could have saved them a big black eye though.

                  -Charlie