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."

39 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Priorities by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Finding the buyers can recover the stolen property.
      Finding the buyers can lead you to the sellers.

    2. Re:Priorities by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish the police would not use battering rams to recover stolen property.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Priorities by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sue Apple for slander also?

      It was presumably Apple that saw the device activation and told the police about the phone and its location.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Priorities by BronsCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but you don't have to ARREST the buyers, unless you have grounds to believe they knew they were buying stolen goods; they've done nothing wrong. Find them, question them, let them point you in the right direction, but don't arrest innocent people.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    5. Re:Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Breaking the door down is, counter-intuitively, a safety measure.

      That's not a very good "safety measure"; innocent people have a right to be secure in their property, and seeing their door being bashed in without warning, basically gives the inhabitants carte blanche to pull out any guns they can find and open fire in the direction of intruders; the result could be fatalities of members of their "surprise raid team", and it will all be legally protected self-defense.

    6. Re:Priorities by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I never said otherwise. I was only refuting the argument that the police should not be looking for buyers. I agree completely that there is no reason to batter their doors down with a ram.

    7. Re:Priorities by sabri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but don't arrest innocent people.

      Innocent people are being arrested every day. The legal requirements to get an arrest warrant are very narrow, there is no need to proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

      That said, I'm sure SFPD will find themselves in court pretty soon, as the amount of force used was pretty unreasonable, not to mention the way that the lady was treated by the police.

      In the end, there is only one question to ask: was this a reasonable thing to do, considering the type of alleged crime? I'm quite sure this will result in a six figure, of not seven, payout.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    8. Re:Priorities by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was a Sheriff's deputy killed under similar circumstances in Texas.

      Normally, Texas will light you up for killing a cop. But this guy was acquitted because he reasonably believed it was a House Invasion.

      If you REALLY think the house is filled with bad guys with guns, I would think the last thing you do is go barging in. Set up the parameter, then give that phone a call and simply inform that they need to come out or die.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:Priorities by Zxern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't a violent theft though. Unless they had good reason to believe their suspects were violent or had some criminal history, there was no justification for the tactics they used.

      High dollar amount just raises the penalties, not the force used to apprehend them, if it was we'd have seen tanks knocking down the Enron headquarters.

    10. Re:Priorities by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree completely that there is no reason to batter their doors down with a ram.

      At the VERY least, I hope this couple has lawyered up and are preparing to sue the living shit out of the PD and the city if not state and whomever else they can.

      The authorities need to take a hit on this one and learn the lesson that not every "house call" demands SWAT type levels of entry and treatment of the residents.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Priorities by toonces33 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple effed up as well. They were the ones that gave the info to the police. If it were me, that would be the last Apple product that I would ever buy.

    12. Re: Priorities by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Paid for by the city's insurance company

      FTFY. But if you had a line item for police brutality on your taxes, you might just be motivated enough to do something about it.

    13. Re:Priorities by Br00se · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd rather see someone in charge of making these decision demoted or fired and sued in civil court, rather than see the taxpayers pay a bunch of ambulance chasers.

  2. Proof of US police incompetence by Bruce66423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are lucky they weren't shot for having their hands near their waists

      (you know, the location where most humans' hands naturally hang)

    2. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      To the contrary. It's not a problem of the police. It's a problem of people wanting such a police force. If you elect officials on a "tough on crime" platform, you get police brutality and police actions out of proportions. If you approve sales of armored vehicles and assault rifles to police forces, you get a military force instead of a police. And instead of a friend and helper, you get an occupation force.

      In the end, you get what you deserve.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. We elected and installed these asshats. The police are overbearing and overtly militarized. There's a reason you can't use the military for civil ip law enforcement, so they went around and created a "non-military military".

      Tough on crime and tough on drugs is "weak on civil liberties".

    4. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is sad to see such mistakes

      These are not "mistakes". They did this deliberately. It's how modern police operates. They think they are military, and that everyone else are hostiles.
      Don't ever think that modern plod are your friends or even public servants. There's nothing servile at all in the way they operate.

    5. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you can't have a police force using revolvers going up against criminals with fully automatic weapons.

      You can have police that's unarmed until attacked go up against criminals with fully automatic weapons.
      It is common practice in many countries, and works surprisingly well. Police knocks on the door, and informs them that they're under arrest, and surrounded. By police who are currently unarmed, but will get authorization to break out their sealed arms the minute they hear a gunshot.
      When the criminals don't feel their lives are threatened, and no one points a weapon at them, there's no strong drive for them to start shooting. In fact, there's less, because they have a good chance go get a far lighter sentence. But when cops go in with drawn guns, their hands are forced and you do get shootouts.

      I'm a law-abiding fellow, and the only reason I would want a gun is to be able to protect myself from the police. I have never had a "criminal" point a gun at me, but I have had cops do it twice. That's reality in the US these days.

    6. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Haha, Flaimbaite, but so true.

      The USA is the only nation I'm aware of where police officers legaly can trick unsuspecting citizens, or more important: tourists! into commiting a crime. Get away with it, and get the victim convicted.

      How retarded is that ....

      Police officers that get promoted on numbers of prisoners taken or convicted. Sherrifs (re)elected on the amount of prisoners or convicted ... ha ha ha. Same for state attorneys.

      Judges owning prisons. Prisons run by private corporations instead of the state.

      A law system where a 'grand jury' can say: no the case where this white officer shot and killed a black guy into the back does not deservve to be investigated.

      A law system were a culprit like O Simpson get sentenced unguilty in a criminal case but gets called guilty in a civil case to pay damages for the murder of his wife, ha ha ha ha.

      Your country is so retarded I doubt there are many that are worth ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As far as I can tell, most police intend to be helpful. But there are a poisonous number who aren't, and the police forces seem to protect and encourage them rather than actually discipline or fire them, or, in some documented cases, charge them with appropriate crimes.

      This makes it difficult to trust "police", as opposed to trusting some particular policeman that you happen to know. There are also documented cases where policemen have been disciplined for *not* being abusively belligerent.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  3. Shannon Knuth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Any relation to Donald Knuth?

    I've really learned a great deal from TAOCP. I've gotten to page 10 of book 1.

  4. So what did the warrant application say? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they were stolen from a truck, Apple probably had a range of serial numbers (or some other identifier like an IMEI) for the phones that should have been on the truck

      This makes no sense. Ranges of serial numbers are of little value. Apple should know the exact serial number and IMEI of every stolen phone. Apple absolutely does know the IMEI of every phone they have sold. Its a simple matter to subtract the sold phones from the stolen phones before sending a list to the police.

  5. Incompetence or improper training? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of being trained not to over-react in situations, it appears as if police are being trained to over-react in situations.

  6. Time to sue by chromaexcursion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrongful arrest, and a laundry list of other complaints,
    This is SO blatant, it will settle out of court, for a lot of money.

    1. Re:Time to sue by borcharc · · Score: 3, Informative

      So what? They will hand over some of the taxpayers dollars and continue to do it again. Monetary damages have no effect on the police, they don't care.

  7. New sales slogan by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Nobody's got beaten over an Android"

  8. Former police chief shocked at this? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. The dog survive by Bruinwar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:"Guns are real, ... by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:"Guns are real, ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

    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'
  12. Miranda warning by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Miranda warning by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn Straight. The first words our of your mouth should be "I want my lawyer." Then shut the fuck up till you get one.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Miranda warning by Tuidjy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Are you a corrupt cop trying to mislead people, or are you just completely ignorant of what you're talking about?

      This is how it works:
      - first of all, the police are not obligated to read you your Miranda rights, at all. It is in their interest to do so as soon as they detain you.
      - if you are detained in any way, that is, if your freedom of movement and action is restricted, nothing you can say can be used against you unless you have already been read your Miranda rights.
      - if you are not under any restrictions, i.e. free to move, leave, etc. but talk to the officers, everything you reveal can be used in court. That includes stuff you show them, contents of areas where you invite them, and of course anything you say.

      In the specific case, the police had already arrested the man. They have no interest in delaying the Miranda briefing. What police officers do is NOT detain the person, and just talk to him. Completely different situation.

      As for not talking to police officers... it depends. I've been in law enforcement myself (as military, long time ago, in a country far far away) and have talked to US police officers while aware of the pertaining laws multiple times. It's never gotten me in trouble, and has often saved me a lot of inconvenience and probably a fair bit of money. Police are people. They respond well to being treated as such. All you have to do is be less abrasive than the people whose interests conflict with yours... although if those are the police officers themselves, tough shit.

      I am not a lawyer, though. Clamming up when confronted by police may save you a ton of trouble! But the first thing you should ask a police officer is "Am I detained, sir/ma'am?"

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
  13. 'Whoops! My Bad, here's some cash' by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Police State by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. Regarding consequences by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.