Originally Posted by hmurchison
Police officers break the law all the time. Some are punished but a surprising amount get off with little more than a suspension.
The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.
The issue regarding whether they knew or didn't know the iPod was stolen and the legal ramification there are separate.
Sorry, but that kind of logic doesn't make sense.
Being a journalist gives you some protection - but not against theft. The crime here is trafficking in stolen property - and I don't care if he's the Editor of The Wall Street Journal. That is no defense.
As for whether he knew it was stolen, please stop repeating that fallacious argument. Under CA law, it was stolen - it's not even a gray area.
Originally Posted by eightzero
Can Jason be compelled to give up the password? Not in the criminal case. Mr. 5th Amendment likely applies. But probably not in any civil case someone in Cuppertino might wish to bring against him (and his employer.)
He can most certainly be ordered to turn over any relevant documents on the computer.
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn
But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.
Please reference these reports.
There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.
So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.
Why? First, you don't know if Apple reported it stolen.
More importantly, there's no such requirement in the law. If you go on vacation and I break into your house and steal your TV and car and the police see me doing it, they can arrest me - even though you have clearly not filed a stolen property report.
Originally Posted by WilliamG
What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.
The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.
In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.
That last sentence is the ONLY similarity - but it's not enough to justify what you're proposing. If the reporter believed that the phone caused a risk of imminent harm to the public, he MIGHT be able to make that argument. In this case, he's simply stealing and publishing trade secret information - which is illegal in both CA and NY.
Originally Posted by nitro
this is total BS. apple needs to wake up and understand that any R&D work has its hazards and GIZMODO was just reporting or tabloid reporting the product. "Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple after the Cupertino, Calif., company requested it be given back, "
How does that have anything to do with this case? R&D has its hazards, sure. But why does that give the 'finder' the right to steal Apple's property, Gizmodo the right to buy stolen property, and Gizmodo the right to misappropriate and publish trade secrets? How does returning the phone negate those crimes?
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen). .
Yes, if Apple's target is to make juvenile delinquents who can't tell right from wrong happy, that might be a reasonable approach.
But Apple is a business which has to protect its trade secrets. They have every right to prosecute and most people who are old enough to own anything of value understand that.
Originally Posted by RKRick
Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.
* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.
Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply
Exactly. He can refuse to reveal a news source. But when HE is involved in the crime, that protection doesn't apply.
Originally Posted by Berp
Apple is guilty in the Court of public opinion.
Not at all. Most people don't know anything about the case, but if you ask the majority if it's OK for Gizmodo to steal Apple's prototype phone (using the CA legal definition), take it apart, and publish trade secrets on the internet, most people will say that's not OK.