or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Media request to unseal docs in Gizmodo iPhone case rejected
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Media request to unseal docs in Gizmodo iPhone case rejected

post #1 of 93
Thread Starter 
A request filed by the Associated Press and other media organization to obtain the sealed affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for the raid on Gizmodo blogger Jason Chen's home has been denied.

Judge Stephen Hall of San Mateo County refused to consider the request, instead deferring the case to the judge who granted the search warrant, who will hear arguments on the matter next week, according to a report filed by CNET.

The request was opposed by the District Attorney's office, which argued in a legal brief that prosecutors needed to "maintain the security of an ongoing investigation, which may well be compromised by the disclosure of the search warrant affidavit."

At issue in the affidavit are the names of "two individuals of interest, whom police do not want to alert," the report said, citing comments from an attorney for the media coalition filling the brief who spoke with chief deputy district attorney Stephen Wagstaffe.

Wagstaffe said the affidavit is "not a public record and thus is not subject to requests under any public-records act" and defended the decision to search Chen's home, saying, "our belief is that it's a proper search."

The EFF and other media groups have criticized the search as being improper because Chen's home office could be considered a newsroom, and therefore protected under shield laws designed to prevent police from investigating journalists' sources.

However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist.
post #2 of 93
It's an on going investigation.
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.
post #3 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

It's an on going investigation.
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.

I presume their attorneys told them they had no shot, but they did it to score some pr points in hopes of deflecting blame on them.
post #4 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

It's an on going investigation.
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.

because they are 88s... read it aloud...
post #5 of 93
deleted
post #6 of 93
Quote:
However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist.

Like many expected.
post #7 of 93
Waaa Waaa Waaa...

The thing was lost, was then leaked, and life will (and should) go on.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #8 of 93
Toast. That is all.
post #9 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

It's an on going investigation.
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.

If the affidavit is unsealed as a result of the request then they have every right. There has to be more to legitimize sealing an affidavit and keeping it sealed than simply because the investigation is "on going." There may be legitimate reasons here, but that ain't it.
post #10 of 93
So much for "openness".
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #11 of 93
I dare Gizmondo to find out the "two individuals of interest, whom police do not want to alert" (through whatever means Gizmondo think is appropriate) and then publish them. Com'n, Gizzie, DO it! i DOUBLE-DARE you!!!!
post #12 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

So much for "openness".

What has legal procedure got to do with your opinion of Apple's business practice?
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #13 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post

If the affidavit is unsealed as a result of the request then they have every right. There has to be more to legitimize sealing an affidavit and keeping it sealed than simply because the investigation is "on going." There may be legitimate reasons here, but that ain't it.

perhaps you missed this part:

"The request was opposed by the District Attorney's office, which argued in a legal brief that prosecutors needed to "maintain the security of an ongoing investigation, which may well be compromised by the disclosure of the search warrant affidavit."

At issue in the affidavit are the names of "two individuals of interest, whom police do not want to alert," the report said, citing comments from an attorney for the media coalition filling the brief who spoke with chief deputy district attorney Stephen Wagstaffe."
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #14 of 93
The pint missed is they are skating by the question as to whether Chen has the rights of a journalist. They say as much in their statement.

They are aware that they may have skirted (read: broken) one of their own laws via raiding Chen's home, and therefore are attempting to avoid it completely, attempting to utilize the "theft" issue in the forefront, hoping no one will notice they raided whom they also believe (by omission) a journalist's home.

Media is always a read between the lines event.

The issue at hand was the actual justification for raiding his home. Apple had their property back.

They knew who had the item before it got to Chen (via Gawker).

They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.

Yet they raided Chen's home?

The only viable reason for this is to attempt to search his files in his databases to find his sources without going through a lengthy legal battle.

The judge didn't want to touch it because he knows it's shaky legal ground to stand on.

And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?

This is more than whether Chen stole the phone (he did not), it's a very alarming precedent.

If you feel a reporter is not going to give up his sources AND he has legal protections, state he broke the law and seize his notebooks.

Legal hurdle completely eliminated rather than negotiated.
post #15 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

The pint missed is they are skating by the question as to whether Chen has the rights of a journalist. They say as much in their statement.

They are aware that they may have skirted (read: broken) one of their own laws via raiding Chen's home, and therefore are attempting to avoid it completely, attempting to utilize the "theft" issue in the forefront, hoping no one will notice they raided whom they also believe (by omission) a journalist's home.

Media is always a read between the lines event.

The issue at hand was the actual justification for raiding his home. Apple had their property back.

They knew who had the item before it got to Chen (via Gawker).

They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.

Yet they raided Chen's home?

The only viable reason for this is to attempt to search his files in his databases to find his sources without going through a lengthy legal battle.

The judge didn't want to touch it because he knows it's shaky legal ground to stand on.

And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?

This is more than whether Chen stole the phone (he did not), it's a very alarming precedent.

If you feel a reporter is not going to give up his sources AND he has legal protections, state he broke the law and seize his notebooks.

Legal hurdle completely eliminated rather than negotiated.

Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime? If the guy had given the phone to Chen there would be no issue here at all. But $5000?!!?? Chen is an idiot. The press really are pathetic.
post #16 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime?

beat me to it.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #17 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

The pint missed is they are skating by the question as to whether Chen has the rights of a journalist. They say as much in their statement.

They are aware that they may have skirted (read: broken) one of their own laws via raiding Chen's home, and therefore are attempting to avoid it completely, attempting to utilize the "theft" issue in the forefront, hoping no one will notice they raided whom they also believe (by omission) a journalist's home.

Media is always a read between the lines event.

The issue at hand was the actual justification for raiding his home. Apple had their property back.

They knew who had the item before it got to Chen (via Gawker).

They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.

Yet they raided Chen's home?

The only viable reason for this is to attempt to search his files in his databases to find his sources without going through a lengthy legal battle.

The judge didn't want to touch it because he knows it's shaky legal ground to stand on.

And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?

This is more than whether Chen stole the phone (he did not), it's a very alarming precedent.

If you feel a reporter is not going to give up his sources AND he has legal protections, state he broke the law and seize his notebooks.

Legal hurdle completely eliminated rather than negotiated.

You're not reading between the lines, you're making things up. You're ascribing motives to people with no evidence to back it up.

Chen, on behalf of Gawker, bought stolen property. They knew it did not belong to the person who sold it to them, so they KNOWINGLY bought stolen property. They then defaced it by tearing it apart, and they revealed corporate trade secrets by publishing photos (California has a strict law regarding trade secrets).

The affadavit will be made public at some point - it's no big deal that it's not immediately unsealed.

And what exactly do you think the police are looking for in the files of a two-bit tech journalist? You think they've been watching Chen, and just waiting for this chance to look through his files? Get real.
post #18 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime? If the guy had given the phone to Chen there would be no issue here at all. But $5000?!!?? Chen is an idiot. The press really are pathetic.

You are parsing the law in your fanatical favor.

You should give it a rest.

There, again, is no proof of "purchasing" stolen property, and the moment you recognize that this is Apple's war against the press and bloggers and leaks and not about the item itself, the moment you will be enlightened. :rolls eyes:
post #19 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

You're not reading between the lines, you're making things up. You're ascribing motives to people with no evidence to back it up.

Chen, on behalf of Gawker, bought stolen property. They knew it did not belong to the person who sold it to them, so they KNOWINGLY bought stolen property. They then defaced it by tearing it apart, and they revealed corporate trade secrets by publishing photos (California has a strict law regarding trade secrets).

The affadavit will be made public at some point - it's no big deal that it's not immediately unsealed.

And what exactly do you think the police are looking for in the files of a two-bit tech journalist? You think they've been watching Chen, and just waiting for this chance to look through his files? Get real.

And you know this HOW again? Via the tabloid reporting that is written for controversy or have you interviewed Chen and all parties involved?

Were you there when it happened?

As has been stated, VIA THIS STORY, the investigation is "ongoing" and therefore no conclusions have even been made that a crime was even committed, but somehow you know one has?

Are you on the legal team? Do you work with the task force?

If so, you probably shouldn't even be posting here, as you may be compromising the investigation.

If not, then apparently YOU are making things up.

....and also attempting to put words in my mouth as what you stated doesn't even match what I posted.

...which goes back to YOU making things up.
post #20 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The EFF and other media groups have criticized the search as being improper because Chen's home office could be considered a newsroom, and therefore protected under shield laws designed to prevent police from investigating journalists' sources.

anyone want to come over to my newsroom and place a wager on when and for how long journalist jason chen will be in the county jail? wagers start at, say, five thousand.
post #21 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

You are parsing the law in your fanatical favor.

You should give it a rest.

There, again, is no proof of "purchasing" stolen property, and the moment you recognize that this is Apple's war against the press and bloggers and leaks and not about the item itself, the moment you will be enlightened. :rolls eyes:

"prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist."

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #22 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch View Post

anyone want to come over to my newsroom and place a wager on when and for how long journalist jason chen will be in the county jail? wagers start at, say, five thousand.

That's called "illegal gambling" FYI.

But as long as is in your "Newsroom" then that makes it OK! because the press are above everyone!
post #23 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

There, again, is no proof of "purchasing" stolen property ...

Actually, the law is quite clear:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californias penal code, section 485

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californias civil code, section 2080.1

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriffs department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.

So, according to California state law, the iPhone prototype was indeed stolen. And then Gizmodo bought it for $5,000, a fact which has been highly publicized (by Gizmodo themselves). So, you're wrong. There's plenty of proof (Gizmodo's own admission!) that they bought a stolen phone.
post #24 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

"prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist."


Translation:

"We don't want to acknowledge he may have the status and protections of a journalist and therefore would like to make that a non-issue as of now."

I live in DC. I KNOW spin when I hear (read) it.

I cannot believe the density of some of these responses.....

Also, they state "investigation" meaning no charges have been filed yet, and with no charges there is no summation a crime has been committed.

See how that works?
post #25 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mavis View Post

Actually, the law is quite clear:





So, according to California state law, the iPhone prototype was indeed stolen. And then Gizmodo bought it for $5,000, a fact which has been highly publicized (by Gizmodo themselves). So, you're wrong. There's plenty of proof (Gizmodo's own admission!) that they bought a stolen phone.

Read my response above this one.
post #26 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.

And you know this HOW again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?

And you know this HOW again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

whether Chen stole the phone (he did not)

And you know this HOW again?
post #27 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaynardJames View Post

And you know this HOW again?



And you know this HOW again?



And you know this HOW again?

I fail to see what you are attempting to accomplish, rather than a concise response to my "speculation". (see how that works? Words. Brilliant, aren't they?)

But to make a point:

It's been stated publicly and in print, and also by your colleagues, that Chen did not commit the act of stealing the phone, but merely "purchasing" it. (which also has yet to be proven.)

I guess we (the United States) weren't practicing rendition or hiring contractors to torture, or even letting employees at the department of energy do cocaine and sleep with oil industry executives.

Power, as all things, is abused, as long as one feels they can "get away with it" and no one can stop them.

To play your game, I would have to not have lived in society ever, and also lower my IQ.
post #28 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

I fail to see what you are attempting to accomplish, rather than a concise response to my "speculation". (see how that works? Words. Brilliant, aren't they?)

Not my fault you're too thick headed. Here is a link, maybe it will give you a clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

P.S. You can write all the words you want, doesn't mean you are actually saying anything.
post #29 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaynardJames View Post

Not my fault you're too thick headed. Here is a link, maybe it will give you a clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

P.S. You can write all the words you want, doesn't mean you are actually saying anything.

Do you even know the correct usage of the term you linked to?

Knowing a definition does not imply knowledge of its usage, as modern print and acts have already shown, yours not withstanding.

I other words, you have said nothing yourself.
post #30 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Do you even know the correct usage of the term you linked to?

Knowing a definition does not imply knowledge of its usage, as modern print and acts have already shown, yours not withstanding.

I other words, you have said nothing yourself.

Do you?

Just stop already, you're making yourself look foolish.
post #31 of 93
Lots of argument via the authority of typeface here today.

This request is motivated by the fact that he is a journalist, but the grounds for it have nothing to do with that -- nor with whether he is guilty or not.

The request reads in part:

The records ... "shall be open to the public as ajudicial record" once the warrant has been executed or 10 days after issuance. (Penal Code § 1534.) But despite this clear right of access, allrecords relating to the warrant have been sealed - and the clerk's office will not even release the order sealing the records or the warrant number. As far as the press can determine, these "judicial records" were sealed without satisfying either the procedural or substantive requirements for sealing judicial records mandated by the Supreme Court in NBC Subsidiary vs ... etc

And it then continues for three more pages of examples and precedent about why it is important to unseal warrants quickly. Whether you think Jason Chen is a crook or not,* there's no good argument for why the investigation needs an exceptional level of opacity. The prosecutor's arguments are no different from the ones they make whenever there is a request for openness, and mostly these arguments are shot down in the name of an open society and a huge body of precedent. Though it appears it may take a few more days.


[* For my money, he's guilty -- guilty of paying $5,000 for a clearly stolen good that he equally clearly intended to return shortly after purchasing and using a bit. A crime, no doubt -- but a petty crime.]
post #32 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Translation:

"We don't want to acknowledge he may have the status and protections of a journalist and therefore would like to make that a non-issue as of now."

I live in DC. I KNOW spin when I hear (read) it.

I cannot believe the density of some of these responses.....

Also, they state "investigation" meaning no charges have been filed yet, and with no charges there is no summation a crime has been committed.

See how that works?

Stay there. All investigations are gatherings of fact finding hunts to not only strengthen the initial reason for getting a warrant [charge of trafficking in stolen property] but to tie up loose ends and make sure if it is a one-off instance or just the start of a much larger problem.
post #33 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaynardJames View Post

Do you?

Just stop already, you're making yourself look foolish.

YOU walked into MY playground with eyes wide open.

You KNEW what you were walking toward, so don't try to switch the position.

You came in quoting law several threads ago and got shut down by an attorney.

You know nothing about criminal procedure and a small amount about bullying.

I am not your whipping boy. Go back to picking on someone smaller than you.

I state speculation.

You state animosity and fanaticism.

I'm not the one that looks foolish here.

Then again, yes, I am, by attempting to argue reality with obvious fantasy freaks, I must be quite the fool.
post #34 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milford View Post

Lots of argument via the authority of typeface here today.

This request is motivated by the fact that he is a journalist, but the grounds for it have nothing to do with that -- nor with whether he is guilty or not.

The request reads in part:

The records ... "shall be open to the public as ajudicial record" once the warrant has been executed or 10 days after issuance. (Penal Code § 1534.) But despite this clear right of access, allrecords relating to the warrant have been sealed - and the clerk's office will not even release the order sealing the records or the warrant number. As far as the press can determine, these "judicial records" were sealed without satisfying either the procedural or substantive requirements for sealing judicial records mandated by the Supreme Court in NBC Subsidiary vs ... etc

And it then continues for three more pages of examples and precedent about why it is important to unseal warrants quickly. Whether you think Jason Chen is a crook or not,* there's no good argument for why the investigation needs an exceptional level of opacity. The prosecutor's arguments are no different from the ones they make whenever there is a request for openness, and mostly these arguments are shot down in the name of an open society and a huge body of precedent. Though it appears it may take a few more days.


[* For my money, he's guilty -- guilty of paying $5,000 for a clearly stolen good that he equally clearly intended to return shortly after purchasing and using a bit. A crime, no doubt -- but a petty crime.]

FINALLY.

A rational and informed statement.

I was beginning to think I was in a girls school and everyone was on that time of the month.
(Please excuse my distasteful and sexist attempt at humour. It has been tempered by my disgust with humanity.)

THANK YOU.
post #35 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Stay there. All investigations are gatherings of fact finding hunts to not only strengthen the initial reason for getting a warrant [charge of trafficking in stolen property] but to tie up loose ends and make sure if it is a one-off instance or just the start of a much larger problem.

The point of my statement was that EVERYONE in this forum has already prosecuted Chen, while, as your and my statements show, the fact the investigation is ongoing means there is not yet a determination as to whether a crime has even been committed until charges are formally filed.

In other words, you and I came to the same conclusions.
post #36 of 93
... I must be quite the fool. [/QUOTE]

Finally something we can agree on.
post #37 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleeny View Post

... I must be quite the fool.
Finally something we can agree on.

And the gullible predictable one takes the bait.

I love it when a plan comes together

-Hannibal "the A-Team"

(figured I'd use something you would understand.....)

Also, learn how to quote like everyone else in this forum. No matter what disagreements I have with anyone here, at least they have knowledge of how to use the posting system.

I will correct your mistake for you, but this is the last time.

You can't always go through life following or having someone hold your hand.

Eventually you will have to grow up and go into that big bad world on your own.....
post #38 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

The pint missed is they are skating by the question as to whether Chen has the rights of a journalist. They say as much in their statement.

They are aware that they may have skirted (read: broken) one of their own laws via raiding Chen's home, and therefore are attempting to avoid it completely, attempting to utilize the "theft" issue in the forefront, hoping no one will notice they raided whom they also believe (by omission) a journalist's home.

Media is always a read between the lines event.

The issue at hand was the actual justification for raiding his home. Apple had their property back.

They knew who had the item before it got to Chen (via Gawker).

They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.

Yet they raided Chen's home?

The only viable reason for this is to attempt to search his files in his databases to find his sources without going through a lengthy legal battle.

The judge didn't want to touch it because he knows it's shaky legal ground to stand on.

And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?

This is more than whether Chen stole the phone (he did not), it's a very alarming precedent.

If you feel a reporter is not going to give up his sources AND he has legal protections, state he broke the law and seize his notebooks.

Legal hurdle completely eliminated rather than negotiated.

you really need to read up on the facts.
post #39 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

you really need to read up on the facts.

I have inferred based solely on the "facts" of which no one here knows, so don't act as though you do.

You know what has been reported and nothing more.

The "facts" have yet to be determined or revealed, and even then they will only be what we are told.

Next?
post #40 of 93
These idiots who call themselves journalists, should be reporting on illegal war in Afghanistan, illegal occupation of Iraq, preemptive attack on Iran, dictatorship in Egypt, mistreatment of women in Saudi Arabia, illegal drone terrorism on Pakistan, illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel.
These are and more are what journalists all over the world report on everyday, except in the United States of Amnesia, where gossips are portrayed as news.

These idiots have nothing else to do except go to court to find out about nothing. Shame on you bastards. WHERE were you when Bush destroyed our constitutional rights?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Media request to unseal docs in Gizmodo iPhone case rejected