SFPD now says plainclothes officers did join in search for lost iPhone 5 prototype - Page 2

Originally Posted by Zeos

Anybody can see that Apple strong armed this guy by threatening him and impersonating police officers as they searched his house!!! You can't search anyone's home! No, you cannot do that. This is not the USSR in 1975 (or Russia today). It's America and you can't come into a home acting like you're a cop. People go to jail for this. It's called impersonating a police officer and it carries prison time. The idiot Apple "security official" is an ex cop. Probably a good reason he's not a cop anymore. He certainly knew they were breaking the law. But Apple is worse than big brother and they can strong arm the police. They have more money than the US mint and the arrogance of Apple is certainly obvious here. This cannot get brushed aside as Apple will try to do. If it does it's proof that you can buy anything you want if you are rich and powerful. I doubt that the cops were really there,standing outside,because they denied it in the beginning. They denied it because it was the truth. Then Apple placed a call and suddenly the cops were "actually there but only outside". This is wrong and it needs to be opened up in the major press like it would be if it were anyone else other than Apple. How would you like it if a company, any company, did this to you? Needs to go to the DA for prosecution.

Originally Posted by geekdad

Exactly....These were plain clothes police officers. So it seems they were not just beat cops but detectives So they were a higher pay grade just to investigate a lost phone!!!
So how many times do you think that happens? If you or I reported we lost our phones do you think they would send detectives out to investigate?
Then to top it off no lost or stolen property was found.

Originally Posted by lilgto64

Sure it is legal to search a person's house - if you are an officer of the law and have either just-cause OR a warrant.

Originally Posted by Pooch

they can send "three or four" officers to accompany apple employees on a search for a missing piece of property, but i have people shoving wine bottles up their butts outside my apartment and it takes an act of congress to get the police to show up. guess next time i'll just tell them that the guy is stuffing an iphone up there.

Originally Posted by hill60

Or are given permission.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Not if he was mislead into thinking they were acting in official capacities as officers of the law.

I'll pull over and allow a police officer to have a look around my truck, even without a warrant. But if a security guard flashes blue lights and a badge and fools me into allowing a look in my vehicle, you can bet I'm filing a police report and charges will almost certainly be filed. That I gave permission for the search won't matter one whit. It will still be illegal, done under false pretenses.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Well, then you have facts the rest of us don't. They didn't find it after an exhaustive search. It was apparently in proximity to his home at some point. Could be a friend of his took it from the bar and was at his house at some point.

It could be stolen. Depends if the person that took it intended to attempt to return it. The people in the Giz case sold it and their actions show the had no intention of returning it. You don't know that is the case here. Could be, but you don't know that. If indeed it was stolen and if Apple considered it stolen, they could and should have filed a police report. It's not like the world would be surprised to learn Apple has prototypes. It wouldn't be releasing any secrets.

Originally Posted by jonyo

I'm seeing a lot of mistaken assumptions about how the law works here. First, we've got to separate the 2 things we're talking about: (1) the entry and search of this guy's place, and (2) the possibility of the 2 apple guys impersonating officers of the law.

So, for (1), it's important to understand that the cops can say just about anything to convince you to let them in and search your place without a warrant, and it's NOT illegal. Cops are legally allowed to lie to people, there's tons of precedent for it unfortunately. BS like "You should let us in now and it'll go easier on you than if we have to come back with a warrant" "I'm going to get immigration down here if you don't let us in to search" can be blatant lies, but a cop is allowed to say that stuff in his attempts to manipulate you into answering further questions or allowing a search. All you have to do is say "no I do not consent to a search" and "I don't wish to answer any of your questions, am I free to go?" but so many people just don't understand their rights properly. They did NOT present a warrant, simply asking him to enter and search, and once this guy said "yes, you can come in and search" (not under legally defined duress, which doesn't include vague intimidation at all), it doesn't matter if (A) some were cops, some were not, (B) they had probable cause or not, or (C) they said specifically what they were looking for or if he was a suspect or not. Once he said ok, he BONED HIMSELF. Bottom line, cops are not your friends, do not talk to them, know your rights, protect yourself in all dealings with them because even if you are 100% innocent of any criminal offense, you can still fall into serious legal problems though simple cooperation with their requests. I probably sound paranoid, but this is how it is out there.

(2) Just because 6 guys show up at your door and one says "we're the cops", but doesn't specify more precisely that actually 4 of them are cops, and 2 are non-cops, and you ASSUME that all 6 are cops, even though it's TOTALLY REASONABLE to assume that, there is no case for "impersonating an officer of the law" (which is the specific criminal offense we're talking about, general terms like "misrepresentation" isn't a specific enough description to zero on a specific criminal offense). The onus would be on the accuser to prove that the 2 guys or the cops actively tried to present the 2 guys as cops. The vague assumption stuff won't do it in court, not even close.

The stuff about them being off duty or being there in an "unofficial" capacity seems irrelevant to me, as it seems clear that they *were* there in an official capacity, regardless of whether a miscommunication occurred, the record of this was temporarily misplaced or not transferred from the cops' notes to the official record yet, or there was no record and the PD made it up afterwards to cover their butts (which would be an issue, but an issue about the police's legal requirements regarding record keeping and/or lying to the public, SEPARATE from the officers' conduct within the specific incident at the guy's house). Just because they brought along some non-cops doesn't mean anything, they're allowed to do that since there was no warrant or arrest involved, so the cops weren't doing anything that a non-cop couldn't have done as well, namely asking to come in and search without presenting a warrant or attempting to arrest anyone, and doing so after the guy said ok. Even if they had been serving a warrant or making an arrest, as long as the non-cops present didn't partake in things that only law officers have the authority to do, there's no legal problem.

If anything, I hope this situation reminds people that their rights under the law are not as simple as what we were all told in 9th grade civics class.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

. . . by a 22-year old kid who thinks he has 6 cops on an official police investigation at his front door, questioning his citizenship status too.

If 2 Apple employees rounded up 4 plainclothes badge-flashing police officers to accompany them it was intended to intimidate and scare the kid into doing what ever they told him to do. Nearly every kid in the same position would have agreed. That does not not make it legal, and far from right. The situation as described is akin to thuggery.

Personally I'm shocked by the number of forum members, some who don't miss a chance at calling Google or Microsoft evil and scheming, that would consider Apple's actions, if true, to be appropriate and plainly legal because a scared kid said it was OK if they ransack his house.

Originally Posted by jragosta

And your evidence that they were misled? Oh, wait. you're making it up.

All we know is that the person who knocked on the door identified himself as a police offer - and that was apparently true. There is no indication that anyone said that they were ALL police officers - that is pure assumption.

It was all perfectly legal - see below.

A 22 year old is a legal adult. If they give someone permission to enter their house, they have the legal authority to do so. If the 22 year old is mentally incompetent to understand his rights, he shouldn't be living on his own.

Originally Posted by Swift

They're looking for a stolen -- if you find something you know is not yours at a bar, you're supposed to give it to the bartender to hold -- prototype -- way more than a $600 iPhone. There's no 1st amendment in here, this is not a blog or newspaper or whatever. This is possession of stolen property. Since there was no warrant here, they asked to come in. He could have said, simply, no. He didn't.

Originally Posted by jragosta

And your evidence that they were misled? Oh, wait. you're making it up.

All we know is that the person who knocked on the door identified himself as a police offer - and that was apparently true. There is no indication that anyone said that they were ALL police officers - that is pure assumption.

It was all perfectly legal - see below.



No, the fact that it was lost and not returned allows it to be treated as stolen under CA law. Did you sleep through the Gizmodo case?



Well said - but don't count on any of the haters here understanding what you wrote.



A 22 year old is a legal adult. If they give someone permission to enter their house, they have the legal authority to do so. If the 22 year old is mentally incompetent to understand his rights, he shouldn't be living on his own.

"scared kid"? "ransack his house"? Why all the drama?

Originally Posted by solipsism

Yo know law enforcement also works to prevent crime before it happens. Keeping a prototype from being exposed to competitors is worth a lot of money to Apple and that likely translated into a lot of money for the SFPD one way or another.

I seriously don't see how yo and others have a problem with this. It's no different than what they do for other major companies. Have you not seen the FBI warnings before a movie plays warning you of the potential penalty for copying a movie you own? Have you not heard of raids on torrent sites that actually don't keep any of the shared data on their systems?

Originally Posted by jragosta

No, the fact that it was lost and not returned allows it to be treated as stolen under CA law. Did you sleep through the Gizmodo case?

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Is it stolen now? Probably, unless of course it has already been returned to Apple. Do you know it wasn't returned by the person that actually found it? Apple could have it right this moment and could have had it hours or days after they lost it. But do you know that? No, you don't because Apple hasn't told you that yet. That's the problem with your assumptions. They are assumptions based on incomplete information.

Originally Posted by sticknick

Originally Posted by jragosta

"scared kid"? "ransack his house"? Why all the drama?

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The incident contains an eery resemblance

Originally Posted by Flaneur

Gatorguy, true to his name, works out of his reptilian brain. This is not meant as an insult, just an observation.

It's actually very common these days. I can remember a time when grown men would never consider using the word "scary."

Most likely it comes from a lifetime of watching television, including the formative years.

Gatorguy, get that left amygdala checked out. And work on your gag reflex.

If we could fix this shrieking, nail-biting, fear and hatred of enlightenment and progress, we could actually move into the knowledge revolution that is clearly in our future.

Originally Posted by Swift

They're looking for a stolen -- if you find something you know is not yours at a bar, you're supposed to give it to the bartender to hold -- prototype -- way more than a $600 iPhone. There's no 1st amendment in here, this is not a blog or newspaper or whatever. This is possession of stolen property. Since there was no warrant here, they asked to come in. He could have said, simply, no. He didn't.

Originally Posted by lamewing

Depends on the state and country. If something is left in public and you pick it up....that doesn't make it stolen property.

Originally Posted by geekdad

Having 4 plain clothes detectives come to someone house over a lost phone is abuse of power and wasted resources. Remember no crime had been committed and no stolen property was found.
Do you think you or i could have 4 police detectives help us find our lost phones? With no evidence to back up our claims? So it was a IP5 prototype? Big deal...it was more likely not fully functional and not what the finished product would look like anyway. Plus the real thing will be released to the public in a few weeks so competitors will have the real thing shortly.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.



Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?

Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.

§ 2080. Duties of finder

Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.

§ 2080.1. Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges

(a) 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 sheriff's 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. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:

(1) From what and how it was saved.
(2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
(3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of any part of the property.

(b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the property.

§ 2080.2. Restoration to owner

If the owner appears within 90 days, after receipt of the property by the police department or sheriff's department, proves his ownership of the property, and pays all reasonable charges, the police department or sheriff's department shall restore the property to him.

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.

Originally Posted by jragosta

Who cares about other states or countries? This one was in CA - and the fact that it was removed from the bar is sufficient evidence that it met the requirement to be considered stolen in CA.



Do you think that reporting the same lies will make them true?

Under CA law, the phone can be considered stolen - as soon as they tracked it leaving the bar where it was lost.

And the value is millions of dollars. It's not like losing a commercial iPhone. Given the way the entire industry revolves around duplicating what Apple does, a few weeks or months headstart would be of immense value to the competition.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Wow, that's a very long post for one that manages to avoid any single discussion of the topic.

And why are you asking a dude to work on his gag reflex? You might find Ashley Madison or craigslist a better forum for your particular interests.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

You will note a couple things
-Nowhere does it say or suggest that the finder is to turn it into the establishment. In fact, it states that by taking charge of it, they become "depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire". So, if they subsequently hand it over to the staff and it disappears, they have failed in the legal duty the assumed upon taking charge of it. There is no stipulation in the statute for relinquishing that responsibility to anyone other than the police or the rightful owner.

Originally Posted by Flaneur

That's not very nice. Earlier I suggested he work on his swallow reflex, because he's taking this story in hook, line and sinker, as they used to say.

This story deserves no comment whatever, other than how sketchy it is and has been. We know nothing. The only thing of interest here is the psychology of hysterics who are looking for ways to label Apple evil on the basis of hearsay and a patchwork of half-stories.

Disgraceful. The chihuahuas are stirred up again and they won't stop yapping. Are you one of them, or are you arguing with them? I can't figure it out.

Originally Posted by jragosta

I didn't say that it had to be turned over to the owner of the establishment. In fact, IIRC, I specifically said that it had to be turned over to the authorities - which did not happen.

Originally Posted by jragosta

In fact, your own quote says:
"(a) 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 sheriff's 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. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:"

Originally Posted by jragosta

Since the Gizmodo people didn't do that, they violated the law.

Originally Posted by jragosta

And the same appears to be true in this case.

Originally Posted by res08hao

Of course the guy is an illegal alien, was at the dive bar,
And has the phone

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

The original SFWeekly story is here and adds some additional information to the AI blog.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ple_police.php