Slashdot Mirror
iPhone X Purchase Leads To Police, Battering Ram, and Handcuffs (cbslocal.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CBS SFBayArea:
On one recent morning, Rick Garcia and his wife Shannon Knuth woke up to a posse of San Francisco police officers at their front door. "I peered through the peephole and I saw a police officer and a battering ram," Garcia said. "We heard 'SFPD' and 'warrant,' and I was like 'what's going on?'" Knuth remembers. It felt like a nightmare yet it was real. Garcia says that within seconds he was dragged into the hallway of his apartment complex, handcuffed, then whisked away to the Taraval Station.... Meanwhile Knuth, who had just got out of the shower, was ordered to sit on the couch... After rifling through the apartment Knuth says the officers finally told her what they were looking for: Her husband's iPhone X.
According to the warrant, it was stolen but Knuth showed them the receipt which proved her husband bought it. Once the officers realized their mistake they called the police station and a squad car brought Garcia home. "They gathered their pry bar and their battering ram and they left," he said. So how could a mistake like that happen? It's still unclear but it turns out Garcia and Knuth bought the iPhone at an Apple store at Stonestown Galleria just a few weeks after 300 iPhone Xs were stolen from a UPS truck in the mall parking lot.
One former police chief says the way it was handled "kind of boggles the mind...
"This was clearly an incident that should have just been a knock and talk, a couple detectives come to the door, knock on the door and they would have gathered the same info that they gathered after they put him in handcuffs and hauled him off to jail."
According to the warrant, it was stolen but Knuth showed them the receipt which proved her husband bought it. Once the officers realized their mistake they called the police station and a squad car brought Garcia home. "They gathered their pry bar and their battering ram and they left," he said. So how could a mistake like that happen? It's still unclear but it turns out Garcia and Knuth bought the iPhone at an Apple store at Stonestown Galleria just a few weeks after 300 iPhone Xs were stolen from a UPS truck in the mall parking lot.
One former police chief says the way it was handled "kind of boggles the mind...
"This was clearly an incident that should have just been a knock and talk, a couple detectives come to the door, knock on the door and they would have gathered the same info that they gathered after they put him in handcuffs and hauled him off to jail."
I wish the police would put this kind of effort in to recovering my stolen bike rather than a multi-billion dollar companies product.
But I guess that doesn't fit their mandate of protecting large corporations profits.
It is sad to see such mistakes, and defence lawyers should highlight them in court when police evidence is supposed to be taken seriously. There is a serious problem with the police; it requires a certain type of personality to spend one's life confronting bad guys, and the culture of many police departments is toxic. However in this case there is the added element of a warrant being issued: someone made a false statement to the judge who issued it, and that should also be investigated.
Any relation to Donald Knuth?
I've really learned a great deal from TAOCP. I've gotten to page 10 of book 1.
It will be interesting to see what the cops claimed in their application for a search warrant, such as their reason to suspect the phone was stolen. Somebody screwed up royally here.
Instead of being trained not to over-react in situations, it appears as if police are being trained to over-react in situations.
Wrongful arrest, and a laundry list of other complaints,
This is SO blatant, it will settle out of court, for a lot of money.
"Nobody's got beaten over an Android"
Table-ized A.I.
That only works if you're a billionaire...
Look at all the recent cases where police shot and killed unarmed people, beat suspects to death, and all around committed crimes that would put anyone else in gitmo. And what happened after it all went to court????
NOTHING!
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
sounds like those stolen phones were an inside job, they should be investigating apple store employees and managers
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Guess he doesn't read the news then. Just a few weeks ago it made national news where a "swatting" incident happened and an innocent man was shot dead by police after they got a call claiming that the house where he lived had a hostage situation. Cops showed up in force under the assumption the call could only be true, made no attempt to determine if there was actually a hostage situation or not, and when the owner came out they shot him dead, claiming they thought he was armed. That wasn't the first time police showed up on a swatting call and made no attempt to determine the validity of it before taking action, but the previous ones usually don't end in death of a citizen. Cops routinely shoot unarmed civilians because the cop is "scared". So the only surprise to me is not that the cops went in like this but that the homeowner is still actually alive because I'd have expected a hair trigger hyped up cop to be ready to gun anybody down at a moment's notice.
The dog is lucky it was small & cute & didn't get shot. She was lucky they allowed her a towel when she was sitting on the couch while law enforcement officers were rummaging through their home. He's lucky he was able to keep his mouth shut & they didn't knock him around a bit before taking him in. They are all lucky to be alive to tell their tale.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
Murder is still Murder. Kidnapping is still Kidnapping. Theft is still Theft. Regardless of the costume you wear.
Knuth could've just showed them some of the more cryptic pages from the collected volumes in Art of Computer Programming. They would've run away in terror. Or maybe they would've been arrested for that actually..
No murder and kidnapping are not real. They are legal constructs. Killing someone is real, but murder is a legal construct.
Carrying someone off against their will is real, but kidnapping is a legal construct.
E.g., depending on the laws (and the lawyers), the exact same instance of carrying someone off against their will could be kidnapping, arresting, or protective custody.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Or a marriage proposal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It doesn't even work for people who have legitimate claims. They're fairly fenced in by accepted losses and settlement amounts, and most people need to get back to living their lives or need the settlement money to get out of the hole being beat senseless and losing their jobs. Plus even the best motivated attorneys are going to advise most of them that whatever the proposed settlement amount is, it's as good as they can expect and that a trial may make it much less or none at all.
I actually think the civil claims process it the wrong place to seek to "solve" the police violence problem. The real issue is that prosecutors are basically on the same team as the police and just will not do much to prosecute cops.
I think there needs to be a completely separate court & prosecution system for law enforcement that ONLY handles police misconduct. It should have its own investigators. With this, you'd at least have a prosecution system less influenced by every day law enforcement and prosecution also trying to handle police misconduct.
Never open the door for the police.
Have gnu, will travel.
Cops are not obligated to read you your rights until they begin an official interrogation. As such, it is in their interests to postpone that as long as possible so that you might incriminate yourself before you are Mirandized. Anything you say will be admissible as long as they were not 'questioning' you at the time. Yes, this does suck. No, you will not prevail on appeal.
Do not talk to cops in their official capacity. They are professionals at talking to you, you are an amateur at talking to them.
Further, if you are talking and it is not being actively recorded, cops can mis-remember what you said and how you said it. Nothing can stop the dishonest cop from lying, but silence will prevent the many honest cops from mis-remembering.
So, stop talking. Seriously.
Saying 'Whoops! My bad," would at least be a start. Admitting the error is important, and it isn't always a given.
The US would benefit greatly by having mandatory reporting of activity of this type at the national level. As it is, there is not even an authoritative number for police killings of civilians each year.
"What gets measured, gets managed."
Also, "here's some cash," seems like the least they could do.
...to never buy an iPhone. Never mind, I'll remember.
How do you know you live in a police state?
When you fear the police more than you fear the people the police are supposed to be protecting you against.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Convicted felon, here.
I mostly agree with you.
I would just point out that as the judges get tougher, the stakes get higher. At some point you start to incentivize behavior that you really don't want. Not too bad at the lower levels. At the higher levels, though, perpetrators will start to rapidly escalate violence because they feel they have more to lose by getting caught. This is known in prison as holding court out in the street (apparently this is a movie reference?).
When I got caught coming out of the bank, I surrendered peacefully because I knew it would not be the end of my life. When you make a guy feel that it is the end he may decide differently.
At some point I think we need to be looking at outcomes.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/art...
Do you really want to buy a product from a company which will SWAT you in return (intentionally or by accident)? I guess charging to audio jack adapters hasn't yielded sufficient profit, so now they are desperate to protect every dollar of profit.
Are you a corrupt cop trying to mislead people, or are you just completely ignorant of what you're talking about?
Neither, as it happens. I'm a convicted bank robber, arrested and questioned by local police and the FBI. Maybe you were in military law enforcement, cool. You have detention and Miranda all wrong.
I spent years behind bars reading case law and statutes. Some states have constitutions that provide more protections than the US Constitution but they're all different and I can't speak to those. I CAN speak about the way the federal system works, though.
A cop can stop you for investigation of any reasonable suspicion of a law being broken, for example a TRAFFIC STOP. This is a detention. Yet, miraculously, they never read you your rights during a traffic stop. If you admit to the cop that you were speeding (in hopes of earning leniency) and then try to fight the ticket in court you ABSOLUTELY WILL hear about your admission in court from the ticketing officer.
- first of all, the police are not obligated to read you your Miranda rights, at all.
Well, no. They aren't. But if they don't, they can't use any answers you give them in questioning against you. So, in practice, they always do. Unlike on television, they usually do this at the beginning of a custodial interview, not as they apply the cuffs. Any voluntary statements made before being Mirandized ARE ADMISSABLE, unless they are made in response to questions. If they are made in response to questions there will probably have to be an evidentiary hearing to determine admissibility.
It is in their interest to do so as soon as they detain you.
That's hilarious. They don't benefit from you shutting up, which is very common right after the Miranda warning. It is in their interest to give you as much rope as you need to hang yourself before they are required to Mirandize you in order to preserve the evidentiary value of your answers to questions. There is a whole body of law about how to tell if an interview/interrogation is inherently coercive (also, how 'custodial' it is).
I can't believe we're having this discussion.