Well, now that the PD says "yeah, we were there", it throws any allegations of someone impersonating a law officer out the window. If nothing against the law happened there, plus the guy let them in and agreed to the search, then essentially no laws were broken with regards to this search at all. Why the cops said "wasn't us" and then changed their story to "whoops, yeah, we were there" is a separate thing that might come back to bug them later, but that won't mean anything for Apple. What this means to me is that Apple will not be subject to any legal ramifications from this search at all. PR ramifications though, that's another thing entirely...
It might clear them of impersonation charges. Some courts might not take too kindly to a company using police to assist in gaining entry to a private residence to conduct a search. Why do you think the kept it off the books and denied it ever happened?
Very possible they didn't ID themselves as Apple employees, or maybe they did. In either case, showing up with legal muscle in the form of the SFPD, a non-subtle way to intimidate someone, I would suggest there is still a problem. The fact that those officers deliberately choose to keep it off the books and further did not come forward when the department was openly seeking info, shows they knew there was a problem.
Or it's a hoax.
This is abuse of power. Plain and simple....how many people report a stolen phone and have the police officers follow up? If I reported my phone stolen and told the police my next door neighbor has it. Do you think even for a second they would come with me while I went next door and searched my neighbors house? Not gonna happen the police has better things to do and they would put me on hold while they all laughed! BUT now Apple has done this twice. They get law enforcement to stop investigating murders, rapes, beating...etc...etc.... just to invest time in MINOR lost/stolen property. WOW.......Apple has friends in high places....
Almost everything you say here is predicated on the idea that he connected it to his PC which is not (AFAIK) in evidence at all.
The rest of it (about the legality of what went on), is just incorrect.
In cases like this it is in fact quite typical to hire private investigators. I have read other stories in the past, that pretty much take it for granted that Apple actually has guys like this on the payroll. All big companies do. The shutdown of the fake Apple stores was handled by exactly such people.
As licensed private investigators, they cannot break the law, but if you read the actual story, it said quite clearly that they asked him if they could search the place and he said "yes." There is nothing illegal in that at all. The only question is whether the investigators merely let him *think* they were from the police, or whether they actually impersonated police officers. The later of the two is of course illegal (but far from unheard of).
I'm thinking that the evidence strongly indicates he is the guy, but that he was smart enough to just put it in a safety deposit box or something and it wasn't in the house. So he had nothing to lose really from letting them search.
Haven't you ever watched the Rockford Files?
None of the reported behaviour of the investigator seems either unusual or illegal to me. It's what private investigators do.
You watch too much TV....you know that stuff is made up right?
If officers show up at your door in uniform and question you about lost or stolen property....then everyone in their right mind will assume they are there on OFFICIAL business. Apple employees cannot conduct/lead police investigations. Just having uniformed police there would lead any normal citizen to believe they were there on official business. If uniformed police officers were there on non official business they they mis presented themselves and could face discipline or charges.
I called BS on the unprofessional reporting of this two days ago and I'm calling it again today. Unless this steaming pile of conjecture can be backed up with something verifiable, Apple's lawyers may well have cause to initiate a legal action for defamation.
It might clear them of impersonation charges. Some courts might not take too kindly to a company using police to assist in gaining entry to a private residence to conduct a search. Why do you think the kept it off the books and denied it ever happened?
Maybe the officers just did it as a favor to the ex-policeman and never expected it to become a matter of public interest. They will probably get spanked for not documenting it.
It might clear them of impersonation charges. Some courts might not take too kindly to a company using police to assist in gaining entry to a private residence to conduct a search. Why do you think the kept it off the books and denied it ever happened?
What charges, the only people saying Apple were impersonating anyone, are well, people like you. The police volintelary assisted in Apples investigation, it was the SFPD that tracked the phone to the house. Mr Calderón also agreed to a serch. If this ever got to court the judge would not take too kindly on having his time wasted. As for it not being on the books, well you just making that up, here the sentance from the artical.
SFPD spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said that "we don't have any record of such an investigation going on at this point."
Clearly there was a record of the visit, which explains the quick update but as it wasn't a current investigation, it would not have been filed there. Basically at this point yo've got nothing. This story could be written in 7 sentances "Iphone 5 lost. Iphone tracked to some guys house. Guy gives permission to serch for Iphone. No Phone found. Guy tell paper about serch a month later. Paper smell PageViews. Comentards go mental over percived breach of 1st, 4th, 7-9th, 47th, 108-230th amedments and possible virgin sacrifice of cute rabbits in kinky sex plot to brainwash world"
Well, now that the PD says "yeah, we were there", it throws any allegations of someone impersonating a law officer out the window. If nothing against the law happened there, plus the guy let them in and agreed to the search, then essentially no laws were broken with regards to this search at all. Why the cops said "wasn't us" and then changed their story to "whoops, yeah, we were there" is a separate thing that might come back to bug them later, but that won't mean anything for Apple. What this means to me is that Apple will not be subject to any legal ramifications from this search at all. PR ramifications though, that's another thing entirely...
Hey wise guy,
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
Maybe the officers just did it as a favor to the ex-policeman and never expected it to become a matter of public interest. They will probably get spanked for not documenting it.
Maybe. Strange that it would take four of them and their role, in providing that favor to a ex-cop from another city, is what is questionable.
No report of lost or stolen property, but they volunteer to assist in the investigation and retrieval of the property? Their assistance consists, apparently, of introducing themselves as police in order to facilitate entry into the home. I know it sounds lunatic fringe, but it is unnerving when police start acting as private security for corporations in potentially criminal cases.
Tellingly, he had the number for "Tony" who happens to have been with Apple security, and whose profile has now been removed? Removed for what reason? Certainly suspicious, and lends credence to the man's claim that he was visited by Apple. Certainly smoke in the air. . .
Why suspicious, maybe he was getting unwanted emails etc from media people lol, it is not like the person vanished.
Companies are responsible for acts of their employees committed in the line of work. So acts of an Apple employee doing something illegal in the course of his work (investigating a lost prototype; doesn't matter the hour of the day) would become Apple's responsibility.
A Walmart employee robbing your home would not be acting within the scope of his work, so Walmart would not be responsible.
Likewise, if the Apple person was doing this on his/her own without it being within the scope of their work, Apple would also not be responsible
What charges, the only people saying Apple were impersonating anyone, are well, people like you. The police volintelary assisted in Apples investigation, it was the SFPD that tracked the phone to the house. Mr Calderón also agreed to a serch. If this ever got to court the judge would not take too kindly on having his time wasted. As for it not being on the books, well you just making that up, here the sentance from the artical.
SFPD spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said that "we don't have any record of such an investigation going on at this point."
People like me? People able to read, apparently.
Exactly what do you think "not on the books" means if not "we don't have any record". Shit dude, it isn't that hard.
I certainly never accused Apple of impersonating police. I said that if the police were not there, as they repeatedly claimed, then someone was misrepresenting themselves as police. The SFPD agree.
"If this guy is saying that the people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal." -SFPD spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield
Mr Calderón consented to a search only after 4-6 police officers (4 but he thought at 6 were) show up his door and some member of that party makes racist threats about deportation if he failed to cooperate. You think a judge would see that as a non-issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsideOut
Clearly there was a record of the visit, which explains the quick update but as it wasn't a current investigation, it would not have been filed there. Basically at this point yo've got nothing. This story could be written in 7 sentances "Iphone 5 lost. Iphone tracked to some guys house. Guy gives permission to serch for Iphone. No Phone found. Guy tell paper about serch a month later. Paper smell PageViews. Comentards go mental over percived breach of 1st, 4th, 7-9th, 47th, 108-230th amedments and possible virgin sacrifice of cute rabbits in kinky sex plot to brainwash world"
Clearly there was a record? So clear that no one could find it for two days? No police officer nor anyone else has claimed they found a record of the visit. You just made that up.
"Dangerfield says that, after conferring with Apple and the captain of the Ingleside police station, he has learned that plainclothes SFPD officers went with private Apple detectives to the home of Sergio Calderón"
They found the information after speaking to a captain. As it it was personally relayed to them but they had to track it down. Maybe there is a report now and maybe there wasn't. But you shouldn't feel the need to make things up to bolster your position. It doesn't come off well.
Likewise, if the Apple person was doing this on his/her own without it being within the scope of their work, Apple would also not be responsible
Which would be unlikely in this case, given he and another Apple employee (and 4 cops) were executing his responsibilities to find the phone. He wasn't there to find the phone for himself.
Well, to be fair, only in the case where those action are committed while performing their duties for Walmart.
Sort of like why the 30 minute guarantee disappeared. Too many road pizzas.
True but if they police officers identified them selves as police officers and were not on duty then they mis represented themselves and could face discipline and prosecution. If when the police identified themselves the Apple employees just let it be assumed they were police as well then they are open for prosecution and huge legal liabilities. If you are saying the Apple investigators were not "on the clock" so to speak then they are personably liable for civil suits. I'm sure there will be more details coming out as time progresses......
Comments
Well, now that the PD says "yeah, we were there", it throws any allegations of someone impersonating a law officer out the window. If nothing against the law happened there, plus the guy let them in and agreed to the search, then essentially no laws were broken with regards to this search at all. Why the cops said "wasn't us" and then changed their story to "whoops, yeah, we were there" is a separate thing that might come back to bug them later, but that won't mean anything for Apple. What this means to me is that Apple will not be subject to any legal ramifications from this search at all. PR ramifications though, that's another thing entirely...
It might clear them of impersonation charges. Some courts might not take too kindly to a company using police to assist in gaining entry to a private residence to conduct a search. Why do you think the kept it off the books and denied it ever happened?
If an Apple employee does something at night without telling Apple and without Apple's approval, how is that Apple's fault?
If a Walmart employee robs your home, is that Walmart's fault?
I villify ANYONE who makes up likes and uses them to further their own political agenda.
Like you - defending a story when even you admit that it's full of holes.
OMG......In your example....Ih Walmart directed it.....knew about or condoned it or approved it...then yes it is Walmart's fault.
Very possible they didn't ID themselves as Apple employees, or maybe they did. In either case, showing up with legal muscle in the form of the SFPD, a non-subtle way to intimidate someone, I would suggest there is still a problem. The fact that those officers deliberately choose to keep it off the books and further did not come forward when the department was openly seeking info, shows they knew there was a problem.
Or it's a hoax.
This is abuse of power. Plain and simple....how many people report a stolen phone and have the police officers follow up? If I reported my phone stolen and told the police my next door neighbor has it. Do you think even for a second they would come with me while I went next door and searched my neighbors house? Not gonna happen the police has better things to do and they would put me on hold while they all laughed! BUT now Apple has done this twice. They get law enforcement to stop investigating murders, rapes, beating...etc...etc.... just to invest time in MINOR lost/stolen property. WOW.......Apple has friends in high places....
Almost everything you say here is predicated on the idea that he connected it to his PC which is not (AFAIK) in evidence at all.
The rest of it (about the legality of what went on), is just incorrect.
In cases like this it is in fact quite typical to hire private investigators. I have read other stories in the past, that pretty much take it for granted that Apple actually has guys like this on the payroll. All big companies do. The shutdown of the fake Apple stores was handled by exactly such people.
As licensed private investigators, they cannot break the law, but if you read the actual story, it said quite clearly that they asked him if they could search the place and he said "yes." There is nothing illegal in that at all. The only question is whether the investigators merely let him *think* they were from the police, or whether they actually impersonated police officers. The later of the two is of course illegal (but far from unheard of).
I'm thinking that the evidence strongly indicates he is the guy, but that he was smart enough to just put it in a safety deposit box or something and it wasn't in the house. So he had nothing to lose really from letting them search.
Haven't you ever watched the Rockford Files?
None of the reported behaviour of the investigator seems either unusual or illegal to me. It's what private investigators do.
You watch too much TV....you know that stuff is made up right?
If officers show up at your door in uniform and question you about lost or stolen property....then everyone in their right mind will assume they are there on OFFICIAL business. Apple employees cannot conduct/lead police investigations. Just having uniformed police there would lead any normal citizen to believe they were there on official business. If uniformed police officers were there on non official business they they mis presented themselves and could face discipline or charges.
Amen. Totally with you.
I called BS on the unprofessional reporting of this two days ago and I'm calling it again today. Unless this steaming pile of conjecture can be backed up with something verifiable, Apple's lawyers may well have cause to initiate a legal action for defamation.
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/l...ity/defamation
You're right, and those (including the petty, spiteful media) who so quickly accused Apple are wrong.
The quick accusers and the media will not learn from this - they never do - but instead will live to do the same another day.
It might clear them of impersonation charges. Some courts might not take too kindly to a company using police to assist in gaining entry to a private residence to conduct a search. Why do you think the kept it off the books and denied it ever happened?
Maybe the officers just did it as a favor to the ex-policeman and never expected it to become a matter of public interest. They will probably get spanked for not documenting it.
It might clear them of impersonation charges. Some courts might not take too kindly to a company using police to assist in gaining entry to a private residence to conduct a search. Why do you think the kept it off the books and denied it ever happened?
What charges, the only people saying Apple were impersonating anyone, are well, people like you. The police volintelary assisted in Apples investigation, it was the SFPD that tracked the phone to the house. Mr Calderón also agreed to a serch. If this ever got to court the judge would not take too kindly on having his time wasted. As for it not being on the books, well you just making that up, here the sentance from the artical.
SFPD spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said that "we don't have any record of such an investigation going on at this point."
Clearly there was a record of the visit, which explains the quick update but as it wasn't a current investigation, it would not have been filed there. Basically at this point yo've got nothing. This story could be written in 7 sentances "Iphone 5 lost. Iphone tracked to some guys house. Guy gives permission to serch for Iphone. No Phone found. Guy tell paper about serch a month later. Paper smell PageViews. Comentards go mental over percived breach of 1st, 4th, 7-9th, 47th, 108-230th amedments and possible virgin sacrifice of cute rabbits in kinky sex plot to brainwash world"
They hire others to do the dirty work for them.
Dirty scumbs.
Well, now that the PD says "yeah, we were there", it throws any allegations of someone impersonating a law officer out the window. If nothing against the law happened there, plus the guy let them in and agreed to the search, then essentially no laws were broken with regards to this search at all. Why the cops said "wasn't us" and then changed their story to "whoops, yeah, we were there" is a separate thing that might come back to bug them later, but that won't mean anything for Apple. What this means to me is that Apple will not be subject to any legal ramifications from this search at all. PR ramifications though, that's another thing entirely...
Hey wise guy,
Caldreon said only 2 people entered his residence. Those two residences were NOT police officers but rather private citizens who are employed by Apple.
Caleron, under the impression that these 2 individuals were SFPD, let them in.
These two private citizens began searching his residence WITHOUT a warrant.
Therefore, Calderon can file charges against the two Apple employees for traspassing and even impersonating an officer.
They did not clearly identify themselves before entering a private residence.
Apple is in deep shit right now and you know it. Dont try to back off of it.
Maybe the officers just did it as a favor to the ex-policeman and never expected it to become a matter of public interest. They will probably get spanked for not documenting it.
Maybe. Strange that it would take four of them and their role, in providing that favor to a ex-cop from another city, is what is questionable.
No report of lost or stolen property, but they volunteer to assist in the investigation and retrieval of the property? Their assistance consists, apparently, of introducing themselves as police in order to facilitate entry into the home. I know it sounds lunatic fringe, but it is unnerving when police start acting as private security for corporations in potentially criminal cases.
Tellingly, he had the number for "Tony" who happens to have been with Apple security, and whose profile has now been removed? Removed for what reason? Certainly suspicious, and lends credence to the man's claim that he was visited by Apple. Certainly smoke in the air. . .
Why suspicious, maybe he was getting unwanted emails etc from media people lol, it is not like the person vanished.
Companies are responsible for acts of their employees committed in the line of work. So acts of an Apple employee doing something illegal in the course of his work (investigating a lost prototype; doesn't matter the hour of the day) would become Apple's responsibility.
A Walmart employee robbing your home would not be acting within the scope of his work, so Walmart would not be responsible.
Likewise, if the Apple person was doing this on his/her own without it being within the scope of their work, Apple would also not be responsible
OMG......In your example....Ih Walmart directed it.....knew about or condoned it or approved it...then yes it is Walmart's fault.
Actually, based on agency rules, Walmart doesnt have to know about Walmart's employee behavior.
As long as the employee is employeed by Walmart, Walmart is liable for any actions done by that employee.
What charges, the only people saying Apple were impersonating anyone, are well, people like you. The police volintelary assisted in Apples investigation, it was the SFPD that tracked the phone to the house. Mr Calderón also agreed to a serch. If this ever got to court the judge would not take too kindly on having his time wasted. As for it not being on the books, well you just making that up, here the sentance from the artical.
SFPD spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said that "we don't have any record of such an investigation going on at this point."
People like me? People able to read, apparently.
Exactly what do you think "not on the books" means if not "we don't have any record". Shit dude, it isn't that hard.
I certainly never accused Apple of impersonating police. I said that if the police were not there, as they repeatedly claimed, then someone was misrepresenting themselves as police. The SFPD agree.
"If this guy is saying that the people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal." -SFPD spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield
Mr Calderón consented to a search only after 4-6 police officers (4 but he thought at 6 were) show up his door and some member of that party makes racist threats about deportation if he failed to cooperate. You think a judge would see that as a non-issue?
Clearly there was a record of the visit, which explains the quick update but as it wasn't a current investigation, it would not have been filed there. Basically at this point yo've got nothing. This story could be written in 7 sentances "Iphone 5 lost. Iphone tracked to some guys house. Guy gives permission to serch for Iphone. No Phone found. Guy tell paper about serch a month later. Paper smell PageViews. Comentards go mental over percived breach of 1st, 4th, 7-9th, 47th, 108-230th amedments and possible virgin sacrifice of cute rabbits in kinky sex plot to brainwash world"
Clearly there was a record? So clear that no one could find it for two days? No police officer nor anyone else has claimed they found a record of the visit. You just made that up.
"Dangerfield says that, after conferring with Apple and the captain of the Ingleside police station, he has learned that plainclothes SFPD officers went with private Apple detectives to the home of Sergio Calderón"
They found the information after speaking to a captain. As it it was personally relayed to them but they had to track it down. Maybe there is a report now and maybe there wasn't. But you shouldn't feel the need to make things up to bolster your position. It doesn't come off well.
Actually, based on agency rules, Walmart doesnt have to know about Walmart's employee behavior.
As long as the employee is employeed by Walmart, Walmart is liable for any actions done by that employee.
Well, to be fair, only in the case where those action are committed while performing their duties for Walmart.
Sort of like why the 30 minute guarantee disappeared. Too many road pizzas.
Likewise, if the Apple person was doing this on his/her own without it being within the scope of their work, Apple would also not be responsible
Which would be unlikely in this case, given he and another Apple employee (and 4 cops) were executing his responsibilities to find the phone. He wasn't there to find the phone for himself.
Well, to be fair, only in the case where those action are committed while performing their duties for Walmart.
Sort of like why the 30 minute guarantee disappeared. Too many road pizzas.
Of which, in Apple's case, it WAS his official duty to investigate Apple's missing products.
However, what is quite clear is the investigator has stepped out of line.
Therefore, what ever suing that will most likely be done by Calderon, Apple IS responsible for.
"If this guy is saying that people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal."
He's not kidding. If even a fraction of this is true, Apple is in big trouble.
On the other hand, Sergio Calderon could be lying about the whole incident. But I'm not sure what his motives would be.
What fraction? If Apple wasn't involved they have no problem. A moment of fame? Impress his girlfriend?
Well, to be fair, only in the case where those action are committed while performing their duties for Walmart.
Sort of like why the 30 minute guarantee disappeared. Too many road pizzas.
True but if they police officers identified them selves as police officers and were not on duty then they mis represented themselves and could face discipline and prosecution. If when the police identified themselves the Apple employees just let it be assumed they were police as well then they are open for prosecution and huge legal liabilities. If you are saying the Apple investigators were not "on the clock" so to speak then they are personably liable for civil suits. I'm sure there will be more details coming out as time progresses......