Slashdot Mirror


District Attorney Critiques Gizmodo Emails In iPhone 4 Prototype Case

lee1 writes "After the police broke in to a Gizmodo editor's home and collected emails from computers found there as part of the investigation of the stolen 2010 iPhone prototype, the San Mateo District Attorney's office petitioned the court to withdraw the search warrant, because it violated a law intended to protect journalists. Nevertheless, the DA, rather than apologize for the illegal search and seizure, issued a critique of the seized emails, commenting that they were 'juvenile' and that 'It was obvious that they were angry with the company about not being invited to ... some big Apple event. ... this is like 15-year-old children talking.''"

1 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Nobody has mentioned HOW the warrant was served. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0, Redundant

    IANAL, but if I am not mistaken, if the issue does not involve imminent danger to the public, or (I think) high probability of escape in the case of felonies, warrants are typically supposed to be served when the property owner (or resident) is present, the warrant is supposed to be read to said property owner or resident before a search, and it is supposed to be served during daylight hours. This ain't CSI or SWAT. The fact that police on television shows regularly storm residences does not make it proper or legal procedure.

    I don't know what time of day it was, but from all appearances, and contrary to law, the police actively avoided confronting the resident and owner of the seized property, nor did they read him the warrant.

    That should be very troubling to everyone here. Every time they get away with something like this, is one more example to the public that they CAN get away with it.

    Because they illegally deprived Chen of the use of his property, and illegally searched his personal records (and, also illegally if I am not mistaken, made public comments about those illegally-seized private records), Chen and whoever is representing him should probably prosecute them under 18 USC, Section 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law".

    That is a Federal law that applies to everybody, even State and Federal prosecutors, and it has teeth. Depending on what they did, the penalties range all the way up to death.

    I strongly urge you to read the page at that link, because it is a very handy law to know about if you are ever harassed or victimized by the police or any government official. Don't threaten them, but if they are aware of this law (they probably are), and they know that YOU know about it, that alone could cause them to back off.

    In my state, for example, it is no longer allowed to prosecute a policeman for any crime they commit against a citizen, unless actual malice can be shown. That was a well-intended law that has backfired and led to all kinds of police abuses. But they can still be prosecuted under the Federal statute, 18 USC 242.