or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone

post #1 of 310
Thread Starter 
Police were alerted to investigate Brian Hogan's possession of the prototype iPhone after his roommate called Apple Security out of fear she might be considered an accomplice in the theft.

A new report by Kim Zetter published by Wired identified the roommate named in the affidavit, and reported that she contacted contacted Apple after Hogan connected the prototype iPhone to her computer.

The investigating detective wrote in the affidavit that "[The roommate] contacted Apple in order to absolve herself of criminal responsibility. The tip resulted in police preparing a search warrant for Hogan's apartment.

Zetter reported that the roommate contacted police again two days later, before the search warrant had been served, as Hogan and his other roommate, Thomas Warner, were preparing to remove evidence from their home, including a desktop computer, serial number stickers from the iPhone, a thumb drive and a memory card.

That tip sent police on a chase following both Hogan and Warner in different directions. The police found Hogan at his parents house, and Hogan then called Warner. Both men eventually cooperated in divulging the location of the items, which were scattered in various locations: the PC had been left at a church, while the stickers were dropped at a gas station and the other items had been thrown in a bush.

The roommate had also reported to Apple "that Hogan had found the phone and had been offering it to news outlets in exchange for a payment, despite having identified Powell as the rightful owner from a Facebook page visible on the phones display when he found it."

In contrast with Wired's original report which suggested Hogan was diligently working to find a news organization that could help him return the phone, the affidavit says Hogan reportedly told his roommate, "Sucks for him [the Apple engineer]. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone."

The roommate also revealed that Hogan had told her he had obtained a total of $8,500 from the stolen phone, and that he was expecting another bonus from Gizmodo once Apple officially announced the product. Wired's earlier report described Hogan's transaction as "sharing."

After selling the prototype to Gizmodo, the affidavit revealed that Steve Jobs contacted the site's editor, Brian Lam, to ask for its return. Lam "responded via the e-mail address...that he would return the iPhone on the condition that Apple provided him with a letter stating the iPhone belonged to Apple."

The affidavit also notes that Apple reported that the iPhone prototype was "invaluable" and that "the publication of Gizmodos story was 'immensely damaging' to the company, because consumers would stop buying current generation iPhones in anticipation of the upcoming product," according to Zetter's report.

Apple also complains in the affidavit that Gizmodo's disassembly of the prototype left it damaged. The affidavit also says that the photos Gizmodo took and published were an act of copying trade secrets, and that Gizmodo's Jason Chen was under investigation for receipt of stolen property.

That indicates that the affidavit used for the search warrant was not merely an attempt to discern Chen's sources as a journalist, but rather the investigation of criminal conduct, which shield laws can not absolve journalists from.

Zetter noted that the affidavit "supports the story, offered by Gizmodo and Hogans attorney, that the phone was found, and not stolen from the Apple employee," noting that the engineer said it was "possible, but unlikely, that it was stolen from the bag" he had placed it in.

"However," Zetter added, "its generally considered theft under California law if one 'finds lost property under circumstances that give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner' and yet appropriates the property for his own use 'without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him.'"
post #2 of 310
any doubt he knew he was committing a crime now?
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
post #3 of 310
No?

Did they leak the phone themselves?

No.
post #4 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

any doubt he knew he was committing a crime now?

and what's the penalty for knowingly destroying evidence of a crime?

Hogan's quotes provided by the roommate would perhaps be considered hearsay and inadmissible in a court of law, but Hogan's actions speak louder anyway.
post #5 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

and what's the penalty for knowingly destroying evidence of a crime?

Hogan's quotes provided by the roommate would perhaps be considered hearsay and inadmissible in a court of law, but Hogan's actions speak louder anyway.

You're not a lawyer. The quotes would be admissible because they are statements by a party opponent.
post #6 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

and what's the penalty for knowingly destroying evidence of a crime?

Hogan's quotes provided by the roommate would perhaps be considered hearsay and inadmissible in a court of law, but Hogan's actions speak louder anyway.

it's called, among other things, obstruction of justice.

This guy is in a lot of trouble. And the more trouble he's in, the more trouble Chen is in.

I feel sorry for Chen. He was hung out to dry by Gizmodo. They gave him bad advice.
post #7 of 310
The only thing that hurts Gizmodo in all of this is Knowledge of the origins of the phone.
This, of course, has been missed by all, but is relevant. If Gizmodo had said: "We have obtained what we believe to be a prototype of the next iPhone from a confidential source" With no mention of Powell, and feigned ignorance throughout, they would have had a much greater defense.

As it stands, though it was checkbook journalism, they did practice journalism and the damned parties are Hogan and Warner. Gizmodo is ancillary to any type of "trade Secrets" violation.

As for the extortion, asking for a letter stating the phone is Apple property isn't extortion. Inconsiderate? Yes. Extortion? No.

As for the possibility that people didn't buy the current models due to the new model being imminent, that only applies to Mundanes, if at all. That onus falls on Apple for having such a predictable cycle and in all honesty SHOULD be deemed inadmissible, though it will probably hold some bearing anyway.

The parties at major fault are Hogan, Warner & Apple. Gizmodo was just "along for the ride", for those that insist on the idiotic car analogy to this day.
post #8 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

The only thing that hurts Gizmodo in all of this is Knowledge of the origins of the phone.
This, of course, has been missed by all, but is relevant. If Gizmodo had said: "We have obtained what we believe to be a prototype of the next iPhone from a confidential source" With no mention of Powell, and feigned ignorance throughout, they would have had a much greater defense.

As it stands, though it was checkbook journalism, they did practice journalism and the damned parties are Hogan and Warner. Gizmodo is ancillary to any type of "trade Secrets" violation.

As for the extortion, asking for a letter stating the phone is Apple property isn't extortion. Inconsiderate? Yes. Extortion? No.

As for the possibility that people didn't buy the current models due to the new model being imminent, that only applies to Mundanes, if at all. That onus falls on Apple for having such a predictable cycle and in all honesty SHOULD be deemed inadmissible, though it will probably hold some bearing anyway.

The parties at major fault are Hogan, Warner & Apple. Gizmodo was just "along for the ride", for those that insist on the idiotic car analogy to this day.

Ok you are clearly not a lawyer.
post #9 of 310
...she contacted contacted Apple...
post #10 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

The only thing that hurts Gizmodo in all of this is Knowledge of the origins of the phone.
This, of course, has been missed by all, but is relevant. If Gizmodo had said: "We have obtained what we believe to be a prototype of the next iPhone from a confidential source" With no mention of Powell, and feigned ignorance throughout, they would have had a much greater defense.

As it stands, though it was checkbook journalism, they did practice journalism and the damned parties are Hogan and Warner. Gizmodo is ancillary to any type of "trade Secrets" violation.

As for the extortion, asking for a letter stating the phone is Apple property isn't extortion. Inconsiderate? Yes. Extortion? No.

As for the possibility that people didn't buy the current models due to the new model being imminent, that only applies to Mundanes, if at all. That onus falls on Apple for having such a predictable cycle and in all honesty SHOULD be deemed inadmissible, though it will probably hold some bearing anyway.

The parties at major fault are Hogan, Warner & Apple. Gizmodo was just "along for the ride", for those that insist on the idiotic car analogy to this day.

Gizmodo is guilty as hell. Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures? Gizmodo knew exactly what they had when Jobs asked for it back. They had no business playing games and then leaking trade secrets at that point.

Thompson
post #11 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormj View Post

You're not a lawyer. The quotes would be admissible because they are statements by a party opponent.

cool! Indeed IANAL, but I gather that Hogan can deny under oath having made the statements, but his actions are consistent with having made them.

If you're a lawyer, stormj, these forums need more of your input--especially if you know IP law!
If you're not a lawyer, then you need to disqualify yourself or not make forthright assertions about the law.
post #12 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormj View Post

I feel sorry for Chen. He was hung out to dry by Gizmodo. They gave him bad advice.

You feel sorry for him? Sorry?

Who cares what advice he got? He should have had the same common sense that the roommate did. Even she - who had nothing to do with this - had concerns for the Apple engineer that lost the phone. What did Chen do? He not only went ahead with his scoop, he also broadcast the name of the engineer (but not his so-called "source", who is obviously just a thief now).

Jason Chen has ZERO common sense, and THAT is why he's in deep doo-doo now. So stop being an apologizer. Stupid is as stupid does.

Thompson
post #13 of 310
Charges have not been filed but you're going on record as saying the individuals are guilty of a crime.

Not a mistake many journalists or publishers would make.

I know y'all been sued before but I suspect there's a couple sharpies pulling contingency libel contracts out of the boilerplate file right now...
post #14 of 310
The detective has a future in Hollywood.
post #15 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by ks2problema View Post

I know y'all been sued before but I suspect there's a couple sharpies pulling contingency libel contracts out of the boilerplate file right now...

Libel over what we are saying HERE, in an anonymous forum, where everyone has an opinion and nobody has any facts? Are you kidding me? This is nothing more than an elementary school playground, when compared to the supposedly "sourced" info that we are responding to. You can say what you want all day long in these response forums.

Thompson
post #16 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Police were alerted to investigate Brian Hogan's possession of the prototype iPhone after his roommate called Apple Security out of fear she might be considered an accomplice in the theft.

Let me say a word for that roommate. She showed good judgement in a difficult situation.

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply

Nullis in verba -- "on the word of no one"

 

 

 

Reply
post #17 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertP View Post

Let me say a word for that roommate. She showed good judgement in a difficult situation.

Agreed ... it looks as if she was the only one who actually did the right thing.
post #18 of 310
I don't care about the courts, the lawyers, heck... even the law.

I don't care if the kid lifted the phone off our apple guy or really "found" it.

The kid did a sleezy thing in contacting gizmodo and selling them the phone.and knew it when he did it. Gizmodo was also clearly in the wrong to purchase the phone from a person they knew had no right selling the phone.

Now that it's all unfolding before us and everyone (including me) begins brandish opinion and speculation I can disengage with my own summary.

The kid got a hold of the new iPhone prototype and instead of giving it back to Apple he sold it to Gizmodo. Everyone in this story is old enough to know how to be accountable for their actions and regardless of moral disposition knows that they did not behave in an honorable manner.

IMHO props in the story like Apple, iPhone, Gizmodo, Police and Lawyers (and those that attempt to be) are just peripheral to the matter.
post #19 of 310
Hey, Hogan. "Sucks for you" now, doesn't it? Karma's a bitch. Hope you got some enjoyment out of that $5000 or whatever you got. You've probably figured out by now that the amount of trouble you're in isn't worth ten times that. But, hey, maybe you'll get Jason Chen as a cell mate.
post #20 of 310
Now you know why Hogan Lawyer didn't want the affidavit unsealed.
post #21 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Gizmodo is guilty as hell. Did you miss the part where Steve Jobs himself called Jason Chen and asked for the phone back the DAY BEFORE Chen posted the pictures? Gizmodo knew exactly what they had when Jobs asked for it back. They had no business playing games and then leaking trade secrets at that point.

Thompson

Gizmodo is in far deeper trouble than just that. Apple stated to the police that the prototype was invaluable and would cause lost sales from the 3GS.

Brian Lam wrote an email to Jobs stating that he knew it would cause lost sales. Not only that but, in the email, he was seemingly trying to blackmail Jobs into giving Gizmodo better access (in exchange for getting the phone back sooner) while trying to get confirmation that this was the next iPhone so they could go ahead with the story.

This is also including that Gizmodo gave back a bag of parts of what was originally a whole iPhone, took photos, posted it on the web possibly revealing trade secrets. They even admitted they knew it was stolen in a posting on Gizmodo's website.

Gizmodo is in very, very deep trouble.
post #22 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

As it stands, though it was checkbook journalism, they did practice journalism and the damned parties are Hogan and Warner. Gizmodo is ancillary to any type of "trade Secrets" violation.

Being a journalist does not give you a free pass to commit a crime. Chen committed several felonies.
post #23 of 310
Well the good news is Chen and Hogan are headed to a place where they will have a roof over their heads, 3 square meals a day and all the sex they could possibly want! Me personally, I like the circumference of my anus just the way it is...thank you very much!
post #24 of 310
Like I said in a different post in a different thread, no one seems to care about the legal or moral merits of the issue. This is, and shall always be about whether a person likes Apple or hates them.

We didn't need any detailed information to know that under the law, Giz dealt in stolen merchandise. Now that we have more information, and that information is damning, not one defender of Giz will back off from that defense. If anything, they will dig in deeper and become even more shrill. Even in this thread, it has been suggested that Apple somehow did something wrong. There will no doubt be some still believing that Apple owes Giz an apology. Still others believe that Apple has no rights to trade secrets, patents, or anything else contributing to their success.

When the smoke clears, perhaps sooner rather than later, I suspect that there will be a steaming crater in the internet where Giz used to be. I also suspect that someone will go to jail, but it won't be the staff of Giz. No one will be happy with the outcome. The haters who were never going to buy one of these phones will declare loudly that because of Apple's NAZI campaign agains journalism and freedom, they will never buy another Apple product. At that point, things will more or less be back to normal.

Oh, and Apple will print money even faster than they are now.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #25 of 310
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
post #26 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Gizmodo is in far deeper trouble than just that. Apple stated to the police that the prototype was invaluable and would cause lost sales from the 3GS.

Brian Lam wrote an email to Jobs stating that he knew it would cause lost sales. Not only that but, in the email, he was seemingly trying to blackmail Jobs into giving Gizmodo better access (in exchange for getting the phone back sooner) while trying to get confirmation that this was the next iPhone so they could go ahead with the story.

This is also including that Gizmodo gave back a bag of parts of what was originally a whole iPhone, took photos, posted it on the web possibly revealing trade secrets. They even admitted they knew it was stolen in a posting on Gizmodo's website.

Gizmodo is in very, very deep trouble.

Right. And not only did Gizodo know they were buying stolen goods (over the $900 felony threshold) they KNEW they were dealing in trade secrets AND they made return of the stolen goods CONDITIONAL!
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #27 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenclaw View Post

Being a journalist does not give you a free pass to commit a crime. Chen committed several felonies.

Chen committed, nothing, as all of you have pointed out via the facts available.

Brian Lam? Possibly. Hogan? By the california law and his actions, definitely.

But Chen just reported what he was told to report. Apparently you are independently wealthy and don't have a job.

Good for you.
post #28 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

LOL! What you said is completely wrong so I guess you're going to have to ignore everyone...

No. Just the loudest ones that sound like they belong on FOX.....
post #29 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2236 View Post

Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.

2 questions
1. Are you 13 years old?
2. Do you know what a "capital crime" is?
post #30 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormj View Post

I feel sorry for Chen. He was hung out to dry by Gizmodo. They gave him bad advice.

How do you figure? Seems to me that Chen has long been running around flattering himself that he's a journalist without having educated himself about journalistic ethics or about applicable laws. Who does he really have to blame but himself? (My mom is a trained journalist, and she would have never done what Chen did.)
post #31 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2236 View Post

Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.

Grow up. The room-mate was sitting there watching this guy do something that she knew was a crime, even if he didn't. And he was doing that with her computer. So if she was silent, it would have been her crime too, when they caught up with him. And they WERE going to catch up with him. HE was betraying HER by making her an accomplice. Not that you're rational enough to have noticed.

BTW: it's astounding what you reveal of yourself in your post. You betray appalling ignorance of right and wrong in the first two sentences, and an equally appalling ignorance of everything else in the third. Capital crimes? Because it involved capitalism, I presume? Wow. Just wow.
post #32 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2236 View Post

Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.

For heaven's sake, the guy used HER computer. I'm SURE they can trace it back to her and she's smart to contact the authority to clear herself from being classified as an accomplish.
post #33 of 310
It seems that some were giving Hogan the benefit of the doubt until now. But now we see he knew who owned it and was trying to dispose of evidence.

Are these same gullible people still giving Chen the benefit of the doubt? I wonder what will come of police reading the emails on his computer they confiscated?
post #34 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Gizmodo was just "along for the ride", for those that insist on the idiotic car analogy to this day.

Who else used "the idiotic car analogy" other than you? It's chilling to imagine that someone might be so blinded by partisanship that they want to believe that the party at the center of the misdeed--the party that went out of its way to let it be known they'd pay for illegal trade secrets and who then did precisely that--is the innocent party?

Seems that's akin to saying the cocaine grower and the cocaine user are both culpable, but the pusher isn't.
post #35 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp View Post

Mirror, Mirror, tell me who is the Fairest...

What? You have poison apples?
post #36 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Who else used "the idiotic car analogy" other than you? It's chilling to imagine that someone might be so blinded by partisanship that they want to believe that the party at the center of the misdeed--the party that went out of its way to let it be known they'd pay for illegal trade secrets and who then did precisely that--is the innocent party?

Seems that's akin to saying the cocaine grower and the cocaine user are both culpable, but the pusher isn't.

Go backward. I never used that analogy and marked it for being idiotic. Setting up websites and stealing cars to test drive them and report on them? Only 12 years olds come up with such things.

Wait...weren't you one of them?
post #37 of 310
Hmm.... destroying / hiding evidence? Doesn't sound like something one should be doing if they honestly thought it was a "lost" phone right?

Doubt it will silence the whining trolls though.
post #38 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Grow up. The room-mate was sitting there watching this guy do something that she knew was a crime, even if he didn't. And he was doing that with her computer. So if she was silent, it would have been her crime too, when they caught up with him. And they WERE going to catch up with him. HE was betraying HER by making her an accomplice. Not that you're rational enough to have noticed.

BTW: it's astounding what you reveal of yourself in your post. You betray appalling ignorance of right and wrong in the first two sentences, and an equally appalling ignorance of everything else in the third. Capital crimes? Because it involved capitalism, I presume? Wow. Just wow.

Second.
post #39 of 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouroboros View Post

Second.

Just wanted to comment that you have an interesting name. The snake that eats itself. The representation of the inevitability of finite infinity.

Very creative.
post #40 of 310
There's no one in this story who's a hero or who looks good.

Apple was foolish to put an "invaluable device" in the hands of an obviously irresponsible kid.

The finder did not live up to his espoused Christian ideals when he shopped a device that was not his.

Gizmodo and Chen cared more about the story than doing what was right.

The cops and DA went overboard when they all our Gestapo on Chen's house and by their continued hardball tactics about a phone that someone in Vietnam can somehow get.

All those commenting on this forum look bad because they're so passionate about something that really does not matter one iota to them on a personal level.

And I look bad because I actually took the time to write this.

At least I'm done with it. I think I'll go play with my kids.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gizmodo affidavit says roommate's tip led police to iPhone