or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › SFPD now says plainclothes officers did join in search for lost iPhone 5 prototype
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeos View Post

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.

I agree with you 100%, and I have used Apple products since 1992. They should not be able to get away with this and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

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.

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.
post #43 of 71
Over the past few months I note I've deleted nearly every news feed I once subscribed to, out of the growing awareness that finding actual journalistic content in it has become like trying to find an inadvertently flushed diamond in the NYC sewer system. I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but my hip waders are leaking, I can't breathe this stuff for another minute, and I've begun to wonder if maybe it wasn't always a zircon anyhow.

When you don't have a story, don't write. The sense that it costs nothing to publish on the net because no paper and ink are involved is treacherous. In fact, it still costs the only thing that ever had any real value: your reputation.
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

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.

Or are given permission.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch View Post

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.

You could do what my grandfather did on the farm a handfull of decades ago...

he called the sheriff to report that someone was in his barn and needed to be arrested because he felt it was a threat to his livestock and family...the sheriff said a deputy could be there in an hour or two...

My Grandfather called the Sheriffs office again about 10 minutes later and said "no need to send a deputy, I just shot the son of a bitch to death"

The Sheriff himself came up to the farm within like 4 minutes - when my grandfather informed the sheriff that the man was still alive in the barn, The sheriff threatened to arrest him for lying - My grandfather got out of it by saying "that whole Hour or two estimate was a lie too wasn't it?"
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #46 of 71
Something here does not make sense. Apple required "police assistance" just to GET to someone's house ?? That is clearly not the full extent or the total truth about what occurred.
post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Or are given permission.

. . . 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.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 71
In my entire life I have never left a cell phone in a bar, nor have I found a cell phone or have to run after someone who did.

Given that, and that these devices keep ending up in bars, it seems a bit strange that only prototypes are left in bars, it keeps happening just weeks before a release. Seems more likely that this is part of a marketing plan.
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonyo View Post

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.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

. . . 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.

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?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

As a 20+year veteran of the police force, Apple's Senior Investigator knows full well (or should) that obtaining consent to enter a private residence by deception is illegal under many scenarios according to Supreme Court rulings.

"A voluntary consent is one that is the product of a person's exercise of free will.(12) In assessing voluntariness, courts examine the totality of circumstances surrounding the consent, scrutinizing the facts to detect if coercive factors were present, such as the use of force, the making of promises or threats, and badgering or harassment.(13)
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

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.

Depends on the state and country. If something is left in public and you pick it up....that doesn't make it stolen property. I sure as hell won't give a phone I pick up to the barkeep or whoever works at the place I found it. I would try and contact the person directly. So does that I mean I am a thief because I didn't immediately hand it over?

I doubt the phone had the word "PROTOTYPE" stamped on the back. IF this guy actually found this phone how the heck is he to know it is a prototype?

Think about it. The guy is 22. While legally an adult most people around that age (my wife is a professor and I have gone back to university) are really just big kids. Most would freak out if they had SIX people show up at their house flashing badges and just agree to the search out of fear. Hindsight is 20/20.
post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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?

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, Joe. Tin foil hats are in full display in the two threads discussing this issue. The uninformed knee-jerk responses, the presumed evilness of Apple, the references to Fascism, Communism, simply demonstrate the blind hatred of the posters. I'm actually surprised Godwin's Law hasn't been invoked yet.

Bottom line is that we all know absolutely nothing about this incident. Why people accept, without any questioning, what some web site is publishing is beyond me. AI is behaving more like TMZ or some grocery store tabloid. Next thing you know they will be posting photoshopped images of Steve Jobs. Oh wait... no that was TMZ. I forgot,, they all the same lately.
post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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?

1. How does a person know it is a prototype?
2. So Apple can just pay off the police and they come running, but the average person would be out of luck?
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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?

Did you sleep through the Gizmodo case? That dude sold it. California laws says that you must make reasonable efforts to return it to the owner. You have no idea what the scenario here was. You don't know if Sergio ever had it in his possession, let alone whether he made reasonable efforts to return it or not. You don't know if the police and Apple showed up a week after it disappeared, a day or a couple hours. You don't know any of that.

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.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #55 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

Then, of course, there's the little matter of it existing at all. According to some on 9to5, it could be a hoax.

"Some on 9to5? WHO on 9to5?!"

Commenters.
post #56 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by sticknick View Post


No, I don't think this guy is being over-paranoid. Would you let anyone into your house to search who did not identify themselves as a law-officer? If a search was conducted and it wasn't by the SFPD themselves, it seems to me it's pretty obvious that Apple's security person identified themselves as SFPD or another law enforcement agency. And that, most definitely, is a violation of the law, if that's what indeed happened. The question that comes to my mind is whether they had a warrant and if they didn't, why were they let in?
post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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

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.
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The incident contains an eery resemblance

Parade of typos continues unchecked!
post #59 of 71
The really sad thing about this article is that if this was ANY OTHER COMPANY doing this, with the exact same circumstances, most of you defending Apple would be screaming bloody murder over privacy violations. (as would the authors).

If Google, or Microsoft, or HP showed up at your house with a police escort and said they were looking for a prototype that was lost, and you consented to let the POLICE search your home, and you later found out it was only corporate security that searched it while the police stayed outside.. how would you feel?
post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

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.

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.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #61 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

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.

This all so funny... Police are held to a higher standard. Once 2 years ago my 14 year old son saw a kid beating up another kid while a group of kids watched after the bus had dropped them off. He broke up the fight after one kid fell to the ground and the agressor kid started kicking him in the head. My son is quite large (football linebacker) so he had no trouble doing this. Someone called the police and they arrived and started questioning all those involved. My son gave them all he could and what he did to break this up. What we found out was the kid that started the fight was a police officers son. Charges were filed against him by the parents of the kid he beat up. The police officer came to our door (off duty)in uniform and wanted to question my son. Not knowing he was the father of the agressive kid and not knowing he was off duty we allowed him to ask my son some questions in our presence. he them tried to convince my son to change his story. thats when we started to question why this officer was there. We stated to ask him questions and found out who he was and what he was doing. We contacted his CO and let him know what was happening. the officer got a reprimand in his file for his actions. Police are held to higher standards so they don;t abuse the power we entrust them with.
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.

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

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

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

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.

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.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #63 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

Did you sleep through the Gizmodo case? Not one part of what you just posted is true.

California civil code, lost property statutes:
Quote:
§ 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.

California penal code:
Quote:
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.

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.
-The penal code can only apply if the person that took charge of the item did so in order to "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". If however, the intention was to restore it to the owner or the police, as called for in the civil statutes, then it is not theft.

So, it is consider stolen at the moment that you took it for your own use. This would be made apparent by selling it (hence selling stolen property), using it for your own purposes or hiding it.You don't know Sergio did any of this. You don't know what person did remove it from the bar. And you don't know what the intentions of that person, upon taking charge of it, were.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

How do you come up with millions of dollars? Do you really think as smart as Apple is about their business that they would entrust something worth millions to a schmuck that would leave it at a bar? Especially after the last time? If it was a one of a kind irreplaceable prototype it would never have left the labs. Especially when the final product will be released in a few weeks. Plus they had no evidence this guy had it. If they did they would have had a warrant and did an official police raid and search. they did that the last time.
Even if a competitor got hold of it by the time they could dissect and find value the final product would have been released...value diminishes greatly.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #65 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

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.
post #66 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

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.

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:"

Since the Gizmodo people didn't do that, they violated the law. And the same appears to be true in this case.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #67 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

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.

I'm neither. I am a very long time Apple fan. I've developed a pretty thick skin to the nonsense that the Apple-haters bring to the table. They don't bother me much anymore, because Apple won.

The group tat bothers me more, is those that, just as irrationally as the Apple haters, feel they need to defend anything that might possibly put Apple in a bad light. I am an Apple-fanatic, in the old sense of the word. The more nouveau Apple-cultists are embarrassing. That's who I will most often reply to these days.

Face it, it is completely true that if every part of this story that says Apple said Google instead, those same people would reminding us how evil this all make google.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #68 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

Actually, you don't know if it was or not. If the visit to Sergio's house was the same night, who knows if the person that actually had it was planning to return it. Maybe they did. We don't know. Don't let that stop you lobbing accusations though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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:"

Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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

The gizmodo people did in fact get in touch with Apple and arrange for it's return. You may not like the time it took. Perhaps it was not reasonable, in your opinion. They were never charged, so I guess that remains you opinion. The dude that found it and sold it has been charged. Because, the facts, show he took it with no intent to return it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And the same appears to be true in this case.

Does the same appear to be true here? Perhaps, in your opinion. If you are comparing it to the guys as Gizmodo, your opinion seems not to be shared by those that matter.

Additionally, you have no knowledge of what happened when and since the phone was lost, you are are making a very premature assumption to claim 'the same appears to be true'. The person that found it may have returned it to Apple the next day and Sergio's home was searched the night it was lost. Does that sound like what happened in the Giz case? You could make up al sorts of scenarios and try to make it sound the same, but that would be all you would be doing...making stuff up. The info, as we have it, doesn't sound that similar to the Giz case itself, other than another Apple employee losing it in the bar and someone (you have no real idea who) took charge of it. That's the end of the similarity, as far as we know. Could be identical from that point. Could be totally different.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #69 of 71
Of course the guy is an illegal alien, was at the dive bar,
And has the phone
post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by res08hao View Post

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

post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

Apparently this prototype is merely $300 worth to Apple. A bit strange no one is discussing that on this thread.

Thanks for the link.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • SFPD now says plainclothes officers did join in search for lost iPhone 5 prototype
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › SFPD now says plainclothes officers did join in search for lost iPhone 5 prototype