Or one or more of the police identified themselves as police and Sergio assumed wrongly that all six of them were police (which is probably what the ex-policeman Apple employee was counting on).
Sure. If 6 guys show up and my door and say "were with the police, we'd like to talk to you" am I supposed to parse that means, some, a few, most or all?
This "lost phone" could be worth a hundred million dollars in lost revenue. If the SFPD aren't sending officers out to help try and find something worth a hundred million dollars, then they're not doing their jobs.
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime. Police investigate crimes. Further, it seems this was not an official investigation (it certainly wasn't reported as such) then they are privately providing resources to investigate lost property.
Sure. If 6 guys show up and my door and say "were with the police, we'd like to talk to you" am I supposed to parse that means, some, a few, most or all?
I was providing an option (other than Sergio lying and civilians identifying themselves as police) that I think might be what happened. I didn't approve or say it isn't disturbing. If this was a deliberate deception on the part of the police and the ex-policeman, the answer to your rhetorical question is YES.
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.
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime. Police investigate crimes. Further, it seems this was not an official investigation (it certainly wasn't reported as such) then they are privately providing resources to investigate lost property.
If it was "lost" at location x, but then tracked to location y using Find My iPhone, how is it simply a 'lost phone'.
But there was no crime committed...Apple just reported a "lost" phone....where was the crime?
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?
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.
You left off the third possibility - permission from the homeowner.
Apparently, the homeowner granted permission - so the search is legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime. Police investigate crimes. Further, it seems this was not an official investigation (it certainly wasn't reported as such) then they are privately providing resources to investigate lost property.
The reporting was apparently messed up, but that will sort itself out. Paperwork mistakes happen.
As for the rest, you apparently aren't watching the iPhone 4 case. Someone claims to have found a lost phone and then takes it home with him without attempting to find the owner or turn it over to the authorities. He's being charged with a crime. The same thing happened here.
Apple has a ton of money, which equates to a whole lot of power and influence. From life experiences I've seen how incredible wealth can change people I've known for years. Companies are no different, usually taking on the personality of it's leaders,
Avoiding a sense of entitlement and being above the rules that apply to most others can be challenging if everyone around worships you.
You left off the third possibility - permission from the homeowner.
Apparently, the homeowner granted permission - so the search is legal.
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.
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?
But there was no crime.....they even searched and found nothing. If the phone was worth millions then why did that schmuck that left in the bar have it? How can Apple lose millions from something that will be released in a few weeks?
When the movie industry goes after illegal downloaders they always have TONS of evidence to back up their claims. They get court orders to get accounts from file sharing sites. They get court orders to get IP addresses from internet providers that ties it all to a person. Just getting the court order alone has to pass certain amount of scrutiny. Also file sharing sites have file names you can get from google searches. So they have a very reasonable evidence the file is there illegally. Also they can follow up with a test download of the suspected material themselves for proof.
There was no reasonable expectation the phone existed at that location. The police did not investigate...they took the Apple investigators word for it. Believe me if they had proof they would have come with a warrant. The police can get a warrant if there was reasonable expectation that stolen property was at that location.
As for the rest, you apparently aren't watching the iPhone 4 case. Someone claims to have found a lost phone and then takes it home with him without attempting to find the owner or turn it over to the authorities. He's being charged with a crime. The same thing happened here.
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.
Given the facts, until the SFPD came clean, all anyone knew was that someone showed up at this guys house, representing themselves as police and requesting access to search the home. Since the police formally denied any involvement, it only left two possible conclusions, if the police were being honest and factual (turns out they weren't). Either Sergio was lying, which turns out not to be the case, or someone that was not the police said they were the police.
Or a police officer knocks on the door, shows this guy his badge, tells him that 'these men would like to search your home for some stolen property' to wit Sergio declares that he hasn't stolen anything come on in and look. And the two gents from Apple never said they were or were not police but Sergio assumed they were.
And the stuff about 'are you all legal' could still be made up
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime.
Actually in the state of California if something is misplaced and not returned to the rightful owner it is deemed stolen.
We only have this guy's word that anyone not a police officer claimed to be one or didn't say they were not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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. .
If one finds a whatever in a bar, restaurant etc, the accepted 'attempting to return it' is to hand it over to the staff. Not take it home. One could claim it was a mistake and the guy thought it was his phone cause he was too drunk to remember he left his at home by accident but then why not take it back to the bar where the rightful owner would be looking for.
Or a police officer knocks on the door, shows this guy his badge, tells him that 'these men would like to search your home for some stolen property' to wit Sergio declares that he hasn't stolen anything come on in and look. And the two gents from Apple never said they were or were not police but Sergio assumed they were.
And the stuff about 'are you all legal' could still be made up
Everything else that he claimed, even stuff originally denied by the police has proven to be true. Any reason to think he is making other parts up? The police gave wrong info, Apple gave none and his has ben truthful. Yet his veracity of is the one in question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Actually in the state of California if something is misplaced and not returned to the rightful owner it is deemed stolen.
only if reasonable efforts are not made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
We only have this guy's word that anyone not a police officer claimed to be one or didn't say they were not.
Yes, the only party that has been honest and/or forthcoming. That is indeed whose word we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
If one finds a whatever in a bar, restaurant etc, the accepted 'attempting to return it' is to hand it over to the staff. Not take it home.
We've all known staff in stores, bars and restaurants that treat the lost and found as their personal bargain centre, haven't we? My accepted method to return it, and the method actually covered by Cali law, would be to try to find the owner and or hand it to the police. If you found it you are responsible for it's safekeeping and care. If by handing it to any other person but those two parties and it disappears, would you be responsible, at least in part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
One could claim it was a mistake and the guy thought it was his phone cause he was too drunk to remember he left his at home by accident but then why not take it back to the bar where the rightful owner would be looking for.
Or one could claim, as he did, that he didn't take the damn thing. We obviously haven't heard the whole story, maybe we never will. Assuming he took it because GPS showed at some point it was near his home is just that, assuming. If we are going to assume, maybe let's assume he was at the bar with friends and one of them took it and later dropped him at his house. Maybe he doesn't know anything. Nothing he has claimed has been shown to be false. Why assume he is lying now and making himself a public target at the same time?
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.
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.
Comments
Or one or more of the police identified themselves as police and Sergio assumed wrongly that all six of them were police (which is probably what the ex-policeman Apple employee was counting on).
Sure. If 6 guys show up and my door and say "were with the police, we'd like to talk to you" am I supposed to parse that means, some, a few, most or all?
Needs to go to the DA for prosecution.
No, it needs to go to the DA for investigation. We don't know (dispute your personal certainty) what the DA's investigation will find.
This "lost phone" could be worth a hundred million dollars in lost revenue. If the SFPD aren't sending officers out to help try and find something worth a hundred million dollars, then they're not doing their jobs.
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime. Police investigate crimes. Further, it seems this was not an official investigation (it certainly wasn't reported as such) then they are privately providing resources to investigate lost property.
Sure. If 6 guys show up and my door and say "were with the police, we'd like to talk to you" am I supposed to parse that means, some, a few, most or all?
I was providing an option (other than Sergio lying and civilians identifying themselves as police) that I think might be what happened. I didn't approve or say it isn't disturbing. If this was a deliberate deception on the part of the police and the ex-policeman, the answer to your rhetorical question is YES.
I wasn't thinking in terms of money...what about violent crimes.
This isn't a violent crime so why would that matter? There are specialties within law enforcement.
This isn't a violent crime so why would that matter? There are specialties within law enforcement.
You're right....can't compare the two...
But there was no crime committed...Apple just reported a "lost" phone....where was the crime?
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.
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime. Police investigate crimes. Further, it seems this was not an official investigation (it certainly wasn't reported as such) then they are privately providing resources to investigate lost property.
If it was "lost" at location x, but then tracked to location y using Find My iPhone, how is it simply a 'lost phone'.
You're right....can't compare the two...
But there was no crime committed...Apple just reported a "lost" phone....where was the crime?
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?
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.
You left off the third possibility - permission from the homeowner.
Apparently, the homeowner granted permission - so the search is legal.
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime. Police investigate crimes. Further, it seems this was not an official investigation (it certainly wasn't reported as such) then they are privately providing resources to investigate lost property.
The reporting was apparently messed up, but that will sort itself out. Paperwork mistakes happen.
As for the rest, you apparently aren't watching the iPhone 4 case. Someone claims to have found a lost phone and then takes it home with him without attempting to find the owner or turn it over to the authorities. He's being charged with a crime. The same thing happened here.
Avoiding a sense of entitlement and being above the rules that apply to most others can be challenging if everyone around worships you.
You left off the third possibility - permission from the homeowner.
Apparently, the homeowner granted permission - so the search is legal.
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.
If it was "lost" at location x, but then tracked to location y using Find My iPhone, how is it simply a 'lost phone'.
I was referencing the wording used by tonton in my response to tonton. He called it lost property, so I did too.
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?
But there was no crime.....they even searched and found nothing. If the phone was worth millions then why did that schmuck that left in the bar have it? How can Apple lose millions from something that will be released in a few weeks?
When the movie industry goes after illegal downloaders they always have TONS of evidence to back up their claims. They get court orders to get accounts from file sharing sites. They get court orders to get IP addresses from internet providers that ties it all to a person. Just getting the court order alone has to pass certain amount of scrutiny. Also file sharing sites have file names you can get from google searches. So they have a very reasonable evidence the file is there illegally. Also they can follow up with a test download of the suspected material themselves for proof.
There was no reasonable expectation the phone existed at that location. The police did not investigate...they took the Apple investigators word for it. Believe me if they had proof they would have come with a warrant. The police can get a warrant if there was reasonable expectation that stolen property was at that location.
If it was "lost" at location x, but then tracked to location y using Find My iPhone, how is it simply a 'lost phone'.
Where was the crime? Was this a police investigation? Was there a warrant?
As for the rest, you apparently aren't watching the iPhone 4 case. Someone claims to have found a lost phone and then takes it home with him without attempting to find the owner or turn it over to the authorities. He's being charged with a crime. The same thing happened here.
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.
Well, it isn't really more or less plausible.
Given the facts, until the SFPD came clean, all anyone knew was that someone showed up at this guys house, representing themselves as police and requesting access to search the home. Since the police formally denied any involvement, it only left two possible conclusions, if the police were being honest and factual (turns out they weren't). Either Sergio was lying, which turns out not to be the case, or someone that was not the police said they were the police.
Or a police officer knocks on the door, shows this guy his badge, tells him that 'these men would like to search your home for some stolen property' to wit Sergio declares that he hasn't stolen anything come on in and look. And the two gents from Apple never said they were or were not police but Sergio assumed they were.
And the stuff about 'are you all legal' could still be made up
If, as you say, it was simply a 'lost phone', albeit worth millions, then no that isn't their job. Lost isn't a crime.
Actually in the state of California if something is misplaced and not returned to the rightful owner it is deemed stolen.
We only have this guy's word that anyone not a police officer claimed to be one or didn't say they were not.
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. .
If one finds a whatever in a bar, restaurant etc, the accepted 'attempting to return it' is to hand it over to the staff. Not take it home. One could claim it was a mistake and the guy thought it was his phone cause he was too drunk to remember he left his at home by accident but then why not take it back to the bar where the rightful owner would be looking for.
Or a police officer knocks on the door, shows this guy his badge, tells him that 'these men would like to search your home for some stolen property' to wit Sergio declares that he hasn't stolen anything come on in and look. And the two gents from Apple never said they were or were not police but Sergio assumed they were.
And the stuff about 'are you all legal' could still be made up
Everything else that he claimed, even stuff originally denied by the police has proven to be true. Any reason to think he is making other parts up? The police gave wrong info, Apple gave none and his has ben truthful. Yet his veracity of is the one in question?
Actually in the state of California if something is misplaced and not returned to the rightful owner it is deemed stolen.
only if reasonable efforts are not made.
We only have this guy's word that anyone not a police officer claimed to be one or didn't say they were not.
Yes, the only party that has been honest and/or forthcoming. That is indeed whose word we have.
If one finds a whatever in a bar, restaurant etc, the accepted 'attempting to return it' is to hand it over to the staff. Not take it home.
We've all known staff in stores, bars and restaurants that treat the lost and found as their personal bargain centre, haven't we? My accepted method to return it, and the method actually covered by Cali law, would be to try to find the owner and or hand it to the police. If you found it you are responsible for it's safekeeping and care. If by handing it to any other person but those two parties and it disappears, would you be responsible, at least in part?
One could claim it was a mistake and the guy thought it was his phone cause he was too drunk to remember he left his at home by accident but then why not take it back to the bar where the rightful owner would be looking for.
Or one could claim, as he did, that he didn't take the damn thing. We obviously haven't heard the whole story, maybe we never will. Assuming he took it because GPS showed at some point it was near his home is just that, assuming. If we are going to assume, maybe let's assume he was at the bar with friends and one of them took it and later dropped him at his house. Maybe he doesn't know anything. Nothing he has claimed has been shown to be false. Why assume he is lying now and making himself a public target at the same time?
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.
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.