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 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.
By taking part in the crime being investigated (sale of stolen goods) Gizmodo lost there protection.
The law protects someone who told him something not someone that sold him something.
and the law says
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 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.
By taking part in the crime being investigated Gizmodo lost there protection.
Neither the finder nor Gizmodo are obligated to respect Apple's trade secrets.
Actually both are. When you find something (the phone was stolen but lets play along) and take possession of it you voluntarily become legally responsible to care for it and return it to its owner. That applies to the trade secrets contained within the phone as well as the phone itself. Pick it up and your responsible period. If either had just looked at it in the bar they would be OK but taking possession carries legal consequences.
Are you intentionally stupid or are you just incapable of reading? The phone was lost, not stolen
To bad you can't read... by Gizmodo's own story and admission the phone was Stolen!
and as such, no laws that prohibit the purchase of known stolen property will not apply. Just because it is known to belong to someone else
I'll ignore the double negative since y'all from Georgia. Selling something you do not own is defined as theft by law. That makes purchasing anything the seller does not own the purchase of stolen property
Not that I'm siding with Giz here, but if I have a party at my house, someone loses something and I push up a notification on my blog about how I found it, and it's really neat, and cool and stuff, is that illegal.
What is someone else at the party found it, and then gave it to me to find the rightful owner, since I had connections to the likely owner?
What if I paid the dude who found it at the party a finder's fee for his time/hassle/good naturedness in giving it back to me to return to my friend?
None of these are illegal and none match the situation with the phone.
the phone was technicaly in the possesion of the bar when it was STOLEN.
Abandoned property belongs to nobody.
FALSE
And so on. Besides the journalist did not keep the property. He investigated it, reported it, and then returned it to the original owner (which he did not have to do, since the owner had abandoned the property).
Yes Giz was legally obligated to return the property immediately
1) The owner was unknown 2) The bartender could not necessarily be trusted to return something he believed might be valuable.
Instead of the bartender, a different 3rd party in the form of Gizmodo seemed like a better option.
1 he already admitted to knowing who the phone belonged to. 2 He apparently also assumed the bar could not be trusted with the information that he had the phone. I think any jury would see this as dishonest intent. also legally the phone was already in possession of the bar when he picked it up so he physically took possession from someone else (definition of theft) 3 unfortunately he has no legal right to pass his responsibility to return the item to another entity other than the police.
Depends on where you find it, eh? California penal code 485 says that it is:
That actually does not apply here as by the thief's own story it was not lost property by legal definition, but misplaced. As misplaced property it was in the possession of the bar. He actually stole it the second he left the bar as he had no legal right to lay claim to it.
If you put your trash out on the curb, and a neighbor helps himself to the iPhone you accidentally dropped inside the bag, you can't later turn-round and sue your neighbor for stolen property in order to get it back. Abandoned property belongs to nobody.
Actually, you can turn-around and sue your neighbor for stolen property to get it back. I don't think you understand the legal system. You can pretty much sue anyone for anything. Whether you win or not is a whole different story.
That is actually a true example of lost property. And yes the neighbor would be required by law to give it back.
Note in many areas that would be theft as law have been passed making garbage property of the waste removal company once it has been put out to the curb. These laws were in fact passed to prevent junk picking.
Try again this is not abandoned property. Abandoned property assumes the owner probably did not want it and intended to leave it behind. In no way would that apply here. And Abandoned property is still owned by the original owner until the finder meets the requirements to claim it by law. Lost, misplaced and abandoned property are all still owned by there owners until the finder meets the legal requirements to claim ownership.
Heck, I'll be sure never to attempt to return a lost phone to its owner in CA
Throw it in the dumpster.
Or you could just left it on the barstool where the owner could find it instead of picking it up and assuming the legal responsibility to find its owner that you have in all 50 states.
He gave Gizmodo the phone. Gizmodo gave him money. That will hold up as a quid pro quo sale in every court in this country. remember the criminal level of proof is not absolute proof but beyond reasonable doubt. The exchange of money and goods is enough for any jury to convict. If Giz just wanted the story all they would need is pictures. But you cant invite a GMA over to your house to look at pictures can you. They needed to phone for publicity.
If you gain trade secret by an illegal action releasing those trade secret is also an illegal action. If it is found that Giz released trade secrets (gray area there) and the came unto those secrets illegally (pretty cut and dry that they purchased stolen goods) Then they are in big trouble by CA and federal law.
I use an Apple Network Server 700 as an end table. The bonus is I put magnets on the bottom of my iPod dock so it doesn't side around. Some day in going to turn it into a mini frig.
Its already been established many times CA law defines this as theft. Actually almost every state would as basic property law a misplaced item can only be claimed by the owner or the owner of the property where it was misplaced.
"Yeah the guy told us it was stolen but we didn't believe him. After all he is a thief."
The thief clearly told them how he got the phone. Whether or not it belongs to Apple is not an issue, its that it didn't belong to the seller it was stolen. Therefore Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen goods.
Triple-bad, I think -- the guy who "found" the phone and rather than leave it with the bar, decided to instead take it and sell it, is probably going to be the target of lawyers as well.
You're telling me this guy never thought to call the bar the next day? Or that the bar sold it off before the guy could claim it?
Why would he it has "find my iPhone". The thief took it out of the bar that night. When the owner noticed it missing he probably checked its location, found that it was no longer in the bar and thus in someone else's possession so we wiped it as the unannounced OS 4.0 on it was very sensitive.
Apparently CA is almost nowhere as the law there requires you to turn over anything over $100 in value and wait 90 days.
Gosh didn't you watch the Brady Bunch as a Kid!!!
Oh and CA law also clearly defines what he did as theft.
And truly in almost NO circumstance does finding an object make it yours. In almost every state there are laws requiring you to wait a set period of time before you can claim lost or abandoned property. And in this case it was misplaced property which the finder can never make a legal claim on.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and ice cream is yummy. Therefore giving it to kids that have had their tonsils out will make more kids have tonsillitis.
the law says
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 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.
By taking part in the crime being investigated (sale of stolen goods) Gizmodo lost there protection.
The law protects someone who told him something not someone that sold him something.
and the law says
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 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.
By taking part in the crime being investigated Gizmodo lost there protection.
Canceling out both falsehoods you get
Gawker media's COO has replied claiming that the warrant was served legally due to Mr. Chen's status as a Douche bag.
Neither the finder nor Gizmodo are obligated to respect Apple's trade secrets.
Actually both are. When you find something (the phone was stolen but lets play along) and take possession of it you voluntarily become legally responsible to care for it and return it to its owner. That applies to the trade secrets contained within the phone as well as the phone itself. Pick it up and your responsible period. If either had just looked at it in the bar they would be OK but taking possession carries legal consequences.
Are you intentionally stupid or are you just incapable of reading? The phone was lost, not stolen
To bad you can't read... by Gizmodo's own story and admission the phone was Stolen!
and as such, no laws that prohibit the purchase of known stolen property will not apply. Just because it is known to belong to someone else
I'll ignore the double negative since y'all from Georgia. Selling something you do not own is defined as theft by law. That makes purchasing anything the seller does not own the purchase of stolen property
Not that I'm siding with Giz here, but if I have a party at my house, someone loses something and I push up a notification on my blog about how I found it, and it's really neat, and cool and stuff, is that illegal.
What is someone else at the party found it, and then gave it to me to find the rightful owner, since I had connections to the likely owner?
What if I paid the dude who found it at the party a finder's fee for his time/hassle/good naturedness in giving it back to me to return to my friend?
None of these are illegal and none match the situation with the phone.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
the phone was technicaly in the possesion of the bar when it was STOLEN.
Abandoned property belongs to nobody.
FALSE
And so on. Besides the journalist did not keep the property. He investigated it, reported it, and then returned it to the original owner (which he did not have to do, since the owner had abandoned the property).
Yes Giz was legally obligated to return the property immediately
He will eventually be freed.
You spelled Convicted wrong.
He'll say:
1) The owner was unknown
2) The bartender could not necessarily be trusted to return something he believed might be valuable.
Instead of the bartender, a different 3rd party in the form of Gizmodo seemed like a better option.
1 he already admitted to knowing who the phone belonged to.
2 He apparently also assumed the bar could not be trusted with the information that he had the phone. I think any jury would see this as dishonest intent. also legally the phone was already in possession of the bar when he picked it up so he physically took possession from someone else (definition of theft)
3 unfortunately he has no legal right to pass his responsibility to return the item to another entity other than the police.
Depends on where you find it, eh? California penal code 485 says that it is:
That actually does not apply here as by the thief's own story it was not lost property by legal definition, but misplaced. As misplaced property it was in the possession of the bar. He actually stole it the second he left the bar as he had no legal right to lay claim to it.
If you put your trash out on the curb, and a neighbor helps himself to the iPhone you accidentally dropped inside the bag, you can't later turn-round and sue your neighbor for stolen property in order to get it back. Abandoned property belongs to nobody.
Actually, you can turn-around and sue your neighbor for stolen property to get it back. I don't think you understand the legal system. You can pretty much sue anyone for anything. Whether you win or not is a whole different story.
That is actually a true example of lost property. And yes the neighbor would be required by law to give it back.
Note in many areas that would be theft as law have been passed making garbage property of the waste removal company once it has been put out to the curb. These laws were in fact passed to prevent junk picking.
Try again this is not abandoned property. Abandoned property assumes the owner probably did not want it and intended to leave it behind. In no way would that apply here. And Abandoned property is still owned by the original owner until the finder meets the requirements to claim it by law. Lost, misplaced and abandoned property are all still owned by there owners until the finder meets the legal requirements to claim ownership.
Heck, I'll be sure never to attempt to return a lost phone to its owner in CA
Throw it in the dumpster.
Or you could just left it on the barstool where the owner could find it instead of picking it up and assuming the legal responsibility to find its owner that you have in all 50 states.
He gave Gizmodo the phone. Gizmodo gave him money. That will hold up as a quid pro quo sale in every court in this country. remember the criminal level of proof is not absolute proof but beyond reasonable doubt. The exchange of money and goods is enough for any jury to convict. If Giz just wanted the story all they would need is pictures. But you cant invite a GMA over to your house to look at pictures can you. They needed to phone for publicity.
If you gain trade secret by an illegal action releasing those trade secret is also an illegal action. If it is found that Giz released trade secrets (gray area there) and the came unto those secrets illegally (pretty cut and dry that they purchased stolen goods) Then they are in big trouble by CA and federal law.
I have friend like that. You might have seen his garage it was featured in the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I use an Apple Network Server 700 as an end table. The bonus is I put magnets on the bottom of my iPod dock so it doesn't side around. Some day in going to turn it into a mini frig.
I always wanted to tile a wall with old CPUs. "Next on DIY. How to turn that old 486 into a decorative back splash."
You are NOT obligated to return something you found.
YES ACTUALLY YOU ARE!
Should have been $4999 would have got Giz out of the Federal transportation of stolen goods charge.
Its already been established many times CA law defines this as theft. Actually almost every state would as basic property law a misplaced item can only be claimed by the owner or the owner of the property where it was misplaced.
"Yeah the guy told us it was stolen but we didn't believe him. After all he is a thief."
The thief clearly told them how he got the phone. Whether or not it belongs to Apple is not an issue, its that it didn't belong to the seller it was stolen. Therefore Gizmodo knowingly bought stolen goods.
Triple-bad, I think -- the guy who "found" the phone and rather than leave it with the bar, decided to instead take it and sell it, is probably going to be the target of lawyers as well.
No there called Prosecutors
You're telling me this guy never thought to call the bar the next day? Or that the bar sold it off before the guy could claim it?
Why would he it has "find my iPhone". The thief took it out of the bar that night. When the owner noticed it missing he probably checked its location, found that it was no longer in the bar and thus in someone else's possession so we wiped it as the unannounced OS 4.0 on it was very sensitive.
Apparently CA is almost nowhere as the law there requires you to turn over anything over $100 in value and wait 90 days.
Gosh didn't you watch the Brady Bunch as a Kid!!!
Oh and CA law also clearly defines what he did as theft.
And truly in almost NO circumstance does finding an object make it yours. In almost every state there are laws requiring you to wait a set period of time before you can claim lost or abandoned property. And in this case it was misplaced property which the finder can never make a legal claim on.