Slashdot Mirror


Judge Orders Gizmodo Search Warrant Unsealed

gyrogeerloose writes "The same judge who issued the warrant to search Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's apartment has now ordered it unsealed, ruling against the San Mateo County district attorney's office which had argued that unsealing the documents may compromise the investigation." You can read the entire affidavit here (PDF). It has a detailed description of the police investigation that led to the seizure of Chen's computers. It turns out Steve Jobs personally requested that the phone be returned, prompting Gizmodo's Brian Lam to try negotiating for a public acknowledgment that the phone was real. Apple was tipped off to the man who found/stole the prototype by his roommate.

8 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Greedy, but now without defense by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    But to his defense he can claim he was trying to verify ownership of the item.

    Unfortunately this story makes it clear that the "finder" knew that the phone belonged to someone named Powell before he sold it to Gizmodo. Did Gizmodo know? Well they knew that the seller wasn't the owner. That's what the warrant and investigation are trying to find out. If Gizmodo knew the identity of the owner before the money changed hands, then they are in trouble.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. Re:wow by Reverberant · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ansd what's up with this: "I therefor pray that a search warrant be issued so the items..."

    Pray?

    It's a term of art in the legal field.

  3. Re:negotiate conditions for its return? by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    All Apple had to do was state this was their property, which is entirely reasonable. Until they do, they can't claim it's stolen property.

    If you've followed the story, and read todays affidavit, its perfectly clear that Gizmondo and Hogan both knew full well the phone belonged to Apple. The confirmation demand was nothing to do with establishing the owner for the purpose of return of the device, but to make something else for Gizmondo to post on their blog. Thus, no it's not in the slightest bit reasonable. In fact it may well add the crime of extortion to the list.

  4. Re:Public acknowledgement? by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    That argument falls down because in the email where Gizmondo demand official confirmation that it's Apple's phone, they already clearly accept that they already know it's Apple's phone. They are quite open about the fact that they only want the official confirmation for so called journalistic purposes.

  5. Priorities by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had my motor home broken into in Sunnyvale and my possessions stolen. I called the police. They told me "Here is your report number. You have insurance right?" I said "No, not for theft." "Well then, why are you calling us?" they replied. "I thought you might want to come out and investigate. They broke the lock, left their tool, probably left fingerprints everywhere..." "No, we don't do that", said the cop, and hung up.

    I guess the cops understand exactly who pays their salaries.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  6. Let me try to sum things up by vrillusions · · Score: 5, Informative

    (yes, I read the entire investigation part of the affidavit)

    According to Brian Hogan's room mate (pg 14) an "intoxicated male" gave him a phone believing it was his. Hogan remained at the bar "a little while longer" and no one claimed the phone.

    According to Powel (the employee who lost the phone) (pg 16) he states his last memory of the phone was placing it in his bag and then placing the bag by his feet.he was there till closing at 11:00 PM local time. He left when the restaurant started to close and he thinks the phone could not have remained in the restaurant more than 15 minutes.

    Brian's room mate called the police because the phone was synced to her computer and Hogan's and was afraid law enforcement could get the ip address and trace it back to her (pg 12). So she was calling to absolve herself from legal issues. Also when she was shown the phone it appeared apple may have already done a remote wipe of the phone.

    George Riley says (pg 12) that the phone was invaluable and that the $8500 (yes, supposedly he got $8500 total, no source on the other $2500 though) that Hogan got the phone was worth the price of the phone if not more.

    Brian Hogan and someone else (sorry, I'm getting tired of finding this in the pdf) knew the police were investigating and was in the process of destroying/hiding evidence. The police went to hogan's father's house and found Hogan with his girlfriend. He said that the other person had some of the evidence. Eventually they got a hold of him and he placed the other items in front of a church.

    Only other gem I found in there is a quote as stated by brian's room mate when she urged him not to sell the phone as it would ruin Robert Powel's image he told her "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone"

  7. Re:It's not ours. Now give it back NOW! by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just to point out the most obvious nonsense in your post, Apple never denied it was theirs.

  8. Re:Roommates by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Informative

    No felony occurred until a jury says one has. Reading the affidavit gave me pause in how the detective intentionally exaggerated the circumstances to make it look as if a conspiracy took place.

    Birth dates, residences, and drivers licenses were disclosed making at least 3 people susceptible to identity theft.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.