why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?
Because the ginourmous transnational corporation in question is one that successfully has sold consumer electronics products to him. And he likes them.
You don?t let them in. Rule of thumb, if you have any doubts, you ask for a warrant or you demand ID from all parties. That?s your right. The police cannot just flash their badges and enter your house without your explicit consent.
Under proper circumstances, the police can use a battering ram, break down your door, tackle you and point military grade automatic weapons at your head while you and your children lie bleeding on the floor.
Exactly. If you have any doubt you ask to see badges (yes every badge) and warrants. We all know what happens when you ASSume things.
What happens is that the lead cop smashes your head into the wall and then kicks you in the stomach. After that, one of the juniors handcuffs you and puts you in a patrol car. They charge you with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
And all the cops testify down to the last detail that their actions were justified, completely by the book.
There is no evidence to suggest he is a terrorist and no one is suggesting he is. There was however enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that property not belonging to him and last seen in a place where he was, had been in or near his home for the police to go with the Apple personnel to his house. So while it seems reasonable to say "potential thief" your argument against it is nonsense.
Also, potentially innocent of anything and potentially not involved at all. Lots of potentials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
I wouldn't dispute your claim, it seems reasonable enough. However, there are any number of possibilities to explain why it might not have been sending signal. He could have run the battery dead. He could have restored to factory settings directly from the handset but never plugged it into a computer. He could have used a different computer that was either not found or not on site when they came.
He couldn't have done an OTA restore without an iCloud account/password, could he? Yes, he could have just turned it off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
In my second post above I explained my reasons for assigning more believability to one party over the other. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on them.
Quote:
Nothing in my post indicated that I was "so trusting" of Apple. I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions. However if I was forced to chose a side to believe I would 100% go with police/Apple. Apple has a lot to lose if it can be proven that they broke the law, so why would they do it? If Apple's security people are ex-law enforcement they would know the consequences of their actions. Calderon on the other hand has everything to gain by fabricating details about the encounter, especially if he really did steal the iPhone. People lie every day in the hopes of a big payday from a lawsuit.
My thoughts would be that Apple would have as much reason to have their story believed as Calderon would, if only to prevent the benefits Calderon might gain. As you say, they also have more to lose, so if a short time employee like Colon was to have acted inappropriately, that has the potential to hurt them a lot.
As for choosing sides, I would not yet pick a side. I like Apple and won't want them to come out on the side of angels, but there is too much missing information. Nothing I have heard would lesses Calderon's credibility at this point. Some parts of his tale that appeared to be bogus have since been validated. Not one part has been refuted. That is not true of the SFPD and Apple hasn't said anything yet. So, since there is no reason to discredit Calderon, I won't just yet.
The first part is true (that consent has to be obtained legally). The latter part is false (that the police can not use deception). It is well established that the police do not have to be truthful in obtaining permission to search a home.
Well established? Well established by whom? Police not prohibited from obtaining consent to search under false pretenses, i.e. fraudulent terms. They don't necessarily have to be fully forth coming, but they are not allowed to use undue duress or deception to gain consent. They are granted a lot of leeway for using deceit during investigations and interrogations, but gaining consent for search is a different story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Furthermore, I'm still waiting for evidence that there was deception.
As are we all. Perhaps that is why the SFPD has launched an IA investigation into their officers actions that night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?
Which person may or may not be accused of a crime? No crime has been reported. No crime was investigated. At this point, the only ones being investigated are the SFPD themselves and that will likely include looking into the actions of the Apple employees too.
Really, the best argument you have is to preemptively malign the character of a man you have never met, has been accused of nothing and has had some questionable parts of his story confirmed?
And yes, it is absolutely plausible that 4 or 6 people that screwed might want to gloss over their actions. Just as plausible that Calderon is a lying thief.
I wasn't there, but I imagine the conversation went something like this:
Police officer: "We're with the police department."
Apple employee: "May we search your home for the phone?"
Calderon: "Sure, come on in."
The officers were referring only to themselves when saying they were with the PD, and neither they nor the Apple employees noted that two of them weren't with the PD but merely employees of a corporation.
Whether the Apple employees saw the PD introduction as a convenient way to imply they had some official status themselves and "willfully chose" not to disclose their true role, or whether they simply "forgot", cannot be known by us here in this forum.
Either way, short of a confession of "willfully misleading" by the Apple employees it would be impossible to prove such a claim, so I expect this will not result in any legal repercussions for Apple.
For the officers it may be a different matter. At a minimum, it's seems they failed to file the required reports for such a dispatch.
But what remains to be found is whether this was an official dispatch at all, or merely friends of the Apple security chief who happen to be members of the force and went out on their own time to help him.
If it turns out this was not official police business but merely a favor, there may be implications for those policemen who chose to present it as official PD business to Calderon.
Even that seems unlikely to result in anything more than a reprimand at most, and again will have no repercussions for Apple.
I would agree with all of that, other than the implications of the scope of the introduction. If the officer introduced the group as police officers, then they have introduced the group as police officers. If this introduction was used to convince Calderon that they were all cops, then that was deceptive, though not necessarily intentionally so.
Well established? Well established by whom? Police not prohibited from obtaining consent to search under false pretenses, i.e. fraudulent terms. They don't necessarily have to be fully forth coming, but they are not allowed to use undue duress or deception to gain consent. They are granted a lot of leeway for using deceit during investigations and interrogations, but gaining consent for search is a different story.
sigh. I hoped by specifying that they are allowed to lie during the course of an investigation but not in order to gain consent to search you would at least provide a link dealing with fraudulently gained consent to search. You did not. I dreamed to high, I suppose.
Now, for Supreme Court decision, that actually, you know, deals with deception used to gain consent to search.
In the end, police probably are granted some leeway in being allowed to lie to gain consent. But that leeway is not total, as it might be with a private citizen. Private security falls between these two groups and may have the same restrictions that police have. In fact, they may have more restrictions because they do not technically have the same authorities.
which would mean the officers had leave to search the premises, not Apple staff
No. If you give consent to allow a GROUP of people to search your property, any or all of that group of people can search your property. If you specifically don't want certain people in the group to come into your home, you should tell them. My understanding is that he consented to search. His complaint seems to be he thought they were all police.
No. If you give consent to allow a GROUP of people to search your property, any or all of that group of people can search your property. If you specifically don't want certain people in the group to come into your home, you should tell them. My understanding is that he consented to search. His complaint seems to be he thought they were all police.
And that he thought he was granting permission to the police to conduct the search not private security personnel.
And yes, it is absolutely plausible that 4 or 6 people that screwed up might want to gloss over their actions. Just as plausible that Calderon is a lying thief.
I think you're arguing a different point than most of us. I agree with your sentence completely. However that isn't what we're addressing. I would argue (and did above) that the 4 or 6 people wouldn't have messed up because they would know better.
I would say it is less plausible that Apple personnel and cops would knowingly break the law than it is that Calderon is a lying thief. Cops and Apple have more to lose from breaking the law than an average citizen (if they are caught). Apple could face huge financial penalties, not to mention millions/billions in bad press. Cops would go to jail and lose any possibility of continuing in their profession. I think it is also generally accepted that at least Apple doesn't usually employe stupid people. If those two things can be agreed on then it makes more sense that the guys knocking on the door are less likely to have made the decision to do something wrong than the guy (whatever guy) who actually did take the iPhone.
There are lots more thieves than there are dirty cops...
I think you're arguing a different point than most of us. I agree with your sentence completely. However that isn't what we're addressing. I would argue (and did above) that the 4 or 6 people wouldn't have messed up because they would know better.
I would say it is less plausible that Apple personnel and cops would knowingly break the law than it is that Calderon is a lying thief. Cops and Apple have more to lose from breaking the law than an average citizen (if they are caught). Apple could face huge financial penalties, not to mention millions/billions in bad press. Cops would go to jail and lose any possibility of continuing in their profession. I think it is also generally accepted that at least Apple doesn't usually employe stupid people. If those two things can be agreed on then it makes more sense that the guys knocking on the door are less likely to have made the decision to do something wrong than the guy (whatever guy) who actually did take the iPhone.
-Every one of those reasons you give equally apply to whether they would be honest after the fact, if something dodgy went down.
-As smart and ethical as they may be, everyone is human and makes mistakes. Imagine the pressure and adrenaline rush of looking for a lost Apple prototype.
-The officers in question already put their credibility into question when the failed to document their involvement, against department policy.
-If they are caught. A month went by and if it wasn't for a leak to the press Calderon may never have come forward with his story. If not for his story, no one would 'get caught' for anything in this case.
But, as we agree, there is too little information to make any determinations. Apple isn't speaking and the police, after their mis-statements seem to have clammed up and are investigating internally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
There are lots more thieves than there are dirty cops...
true, but as percentages of their totals, the might be a lot more dirty cops amongst all cops than there are thieves amongst the general population.
"It's not something we can just let pass," Dangerfield said.
Police officials said they were unable to confirm until Friday that a search had taken place because those involved did not file paperwork, at Apple's request.
So, the SFPD officers, knowing they were required by their own dept regulations to socument their involvement, kept it off the books at Apple's request? One of Apple employees, being a 26 year police veteran, would have known that was not a wise request and at least one of the officers should have know it was against regs, yet made they request anyway and the four officers present agreed.
The police are now framing this as a "civil standby", where they attended in order to ensure all parties were safe and secure. Yet, other than introductions, they don't seem to have done much to ensure anything. The SFPD acknowledges they waited outside while the Apple employees went with Calderon inside and presumably out of sight.
Yeah, nothing sketchy about this at all. But Calderon is the lying thief (with no evidence, charges, reported stolen property or accusations from those involved).
sigh. I hoped by specifying that they are allowed to lie during the course of an investigation but not in order to gain consent to search you would at least provide a link dealing with fraudulently gained consent to search. You did not. I dreamed to high, I suppose.
Now, for Supreme Court decision, that actually, you know, deals with deception used to gain consent to search.
In the end, police probably are granted some leeway in being allowed to lie to gain consent. But that leeway is not total, as it might be with a private citizen. Private security falls between these two groups and may have the same restrictions that police have. In fact, they may have more restrictions because they do not technically have the same authorities.
That ruling says simply that the police can not tell someone that they have a warrant if they do not. It does not restrict any other lies.
Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence that the police lied at all in this case.
That ruling says simply that the police can not tell someone that they have a warrant if they do not. It does not restrict any other lies.
Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence that the police lied at all in this case.
By all means Joe, find a reference that details exactly what lies they might be allowed to tell in order to gain consent for a warrant-less search. Your original link had nothing at all to do with consent searches, mine did. Yes, that was a specific and extreme example of police lying, but an example nonetheless. You have yet to cite anything related.
As I said, I do believe they have some leeway in using deception to gain consent. I just don't think it is quite a limitless as you.
Bosse was a licensed firearms dealer with a pending application to sell machine guns. An agent from the State of California arrived at Bosse’s home to inspect his premises and the surrounding area as part of the application process. A federal ATF agent accompanied the state agent but failed to identify himself as such. The state agent merely told Bosse that the federal agent “is with me.” Bosse gave the agents consent for the purpose of conducting the licensing inspection. In fact the ATF agent was present for the independent purpose of furthering a federal criminal investigation into Bosse’s firearms activity.
The federal agent testified that he used the access to Bosse’s home to prepare diagrams of the layout of the house in preparation for obtaining a search warrant. A court subsequently issued a search warrant and federal agents seized an illegal sawed-off shotgun, which resulted in Bosse’s indictment. Bosse then argued that the shotgun was seized as a direct result of the ATF agent’s illegal search of his residence.
While the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further findings, it did condemn the actions by the ATF agent. The court found that the misrepresentation of the ATF agent’s purpose and position invalidated Bosse’s consent. The court stated, “We think it is clearly improper for a government agent to gain access to records which would otherwise be unavailable to him by invoking the private individual’s trust in his government, only to betray that trust.” The 9th circuit reiterated that a known government agent who misrepresents his true purpose for entry cannot rely on consent to justify that entry. United States v. Bosse, 898 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1990).
In an earlier 9th Circuit case, the court disapproved of the entry of federal agents into a home that was accomplished with the assistance of local police officers. The local officers requested to enter to investigate a fictitious burglary. The officers used this ruse in order to gain access to the defendant in his own home for the purpose of placing him under arrest without first obtaining an arrest warrant. United States v. Phillips, 497 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1974).
The 5th Circuit also found consent to be invalid when a suspect turned over tax records to an IRS revenue agent who represented that he was conducting a civil audit. The suspect’s accountant asked the revenue agent if a “special agent” was involved in the matter. The revenue agent stated that no special agent was involved. In fact, the revenue agent was conducting the audit at the request of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Department of Justice. Because of the revenue agent’s statements implying the lack of an existing criminal investigation, the defendant made some records available to the revenue agent who then microfilmed all of the records. On remand, the 5th Circuit stated, “It is a well established rule that a consent search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the consent was induced by deceit, trickery or misrepresentation of the Internal Revenue agent.” United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977).
..."When they came to my house, they said they were SFPD. I thought they were SFPD. That's why I let them in." Calderón told the paper that he only agreed to the search because he assumed the two people conducting it were police officers.
Calderón also told the paper that the people he let inside his house asked threatening questions about him and his family, including references to his immigration status. "One of the officers is like, 'Is everyone in this house an American citizen?' " Calderón is quoted as saying in the SF Weekly article. "They said we were all going to get into trouble."
In the SF Weekly article, Dangerfield stressed the seriousness of Calderón's allegations. "This is something that's going to need to be investigated now," he told the paper. "If this guy is saying that the people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal."
å
SF Weekly said one of the men left a phone number with Calderón, which the paper traced to Anthony Colon. According to a public profile on the website LinkedIn, Colon, a former San Jose police sergeant, is employed as a "senior investigator" at Apple.
By all means Joe, find a reference that details exactly what lies they might be allowed to tell in order to gain consent for a warrant-less search. Your original link had nothing at all to do with consent searches, mine did. Yes, that was a specific and extreme example of police lying, but an example nonetheless. You have yet to cite anything related.
As I said, I do believe they have some leeway in using deception to gain consent. I just don't think it is quite a limitless as you.
Sorry, that article is about an ATF agent, not a police officer.
The article I provided says quite clearly that the police can lie about almost anything except claiming that they already have a warrant. In fact, it says that the only time the police have to tell the truth is when testifying under oath.
Sorry, that article is about an ATF agent, not a police officer.
The article I provided says quite clearly that the police can lie about almost anything except claiming that they already have a warrant. In fact, it says that the only time the police have to tell the truth is when testifying under oath.
The article you linked has NOTHING to do with what they are or are not allowed to say in attempting to gain a consent search. I've now given you four examples of police not being allowed to lie in order to gain consent to search. You've failed to provide even a single example of police being allowed to lie in that case. Not one.
Sorry, Joe, but that's another fail. Just like old times on the advocacy boards. You've got me all nostalgic.
Comments
Appologists
That's new. Not being sarcastic, that's new.
why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?
Because the ginourmous transnational corporation in question is one that successfully has sold consumer electronics products to him. And he likes them.
You don?t let them in. Rule of thumb, if you have any doubts, you ask for a warrant or you demand ID from all parties. That?s your right. The police cannot just flash their badges and enter your house without your explicit consent.
Under proper circumstances, the police can use a battering ram, break down your door, tackle you and point military grade automatic weapons at your head while you and your children lie bleeding on the floor.
It happens every day.
Exactly. If you have any doubt you ask to see badges (yes every badge) and warrants. We all know what happens when you ASSume things.
What happens is that the lead cop smashes your head into the wall and then kicks you in the stomach. After that, one of the juniors handcuffs you and puts you in a patrol car. They charge you with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
And all the cops testify down to the last detail that their actions were justified, completely by the book.
There is no evidence to suggest he is a terrorist and no one is suggesting he is. There was however enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that property not belonging to him and last seen in a place where he was, had been in or near his home for the police to go with the Apple personnel to his house. So while it seems reasonable to say "potential thief" your argument against it is nonsense.
Also, potentially innocent of anything and potentially not involved at all. Lots of potentials.
I wouldn't dispute your claim, it seems reasonable enough. However, there are any number of possibilities to explain why it might not have been sending signal. He could have run the battery dead. He could have restored to factory settings directly from the handset but never plugged it into a computer. He could have used a different computer that was either not found or not on site when they came.
He couldn't have done an OTA restore without an iCloud account/password, could he? Yes, he could have just turned it off.
In my second post above I explained my reasons for assigning more believability to one party over the other. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on them.
Nothing in my post indicated that I was "so trusting" of Apple. I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions. However if I was forced to chose a side to believe I would 100% go with police/Apple. Apple has a lot to lose if it can be proven that they broke the law, so why would they do it? If Apple's security people are ex-law enforcement they would know the consequences of their actions. Calderon on the other hand has everything to gain by fabricating details about the encounter, especially if he really did steal the iPhone. People lie every day in the hopes of a big payday from a lawsuit.
My thoughts would be that Apple would have as much reason to have their story believed as Calderon would, if only to prevent the benefits Calderon might gain. As you say, they also have more to lose, so if a short time employee like Colon was to have acted inappropriately, that has the potential to hurt them a lot.
As for choosing sides, I would not yet pick a side. I like Apple and won't want them to come out on the side of angels, but there is too much missing information. Nothing I have heard would lesses Calderon's credibility at this point. Some parts of his tale that appeared to be bogus have since been validated. Not one part has been refuted. That is not true of the SFPD and Apple hasn't said anything yet. So, since there is no reason to discredit Calderon, I won't just yet.
The first part is true (that consent has to be obtained legally). The latter part is false (that the police can not use deception). It is well established that the police do not have to be truthful in obtaining permission to search a home.
Well established? Well established by whom? Police not prohibited from obtaining consent to search under false pretenses, i.e. fraudulent terms. They don't necessarily have to be fully forth coming, but they are not allowed to use undue duress or deception to gain consent. They are granted a lot of leeway for using deceit during investigations and interrogations, but gaining consent for search is a different story.
Furthermore, I'm still waiting for evidence that there was deception.
As are we all. Perhaps that is why the SFPD has launched an IA investigation into their officers actions that night.
We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?
Which person may or may not be accused of a crime? No crime has been reported. No crime was investigated. At this point, the only ones being investigated are the SFPD themselves and that will likely include looking into the actions of the Apple employees too.
Really, the best argument you have is to preemptively malign the character of a man you have never met, has been accused of nothing and has had some questionable parts of his story confirmed?
And yes, it is absolutely plausible that 4 or 6 people that screwed might want to gloss over their actions. Just as plausible that Calderon is a lying thief.
I wasn't there, but I imagine the conversation went something like this:
Police officer: "We're with the police department."
Apple employee: "May we search your home for the phone?"
Calderon: "Sure, come on in."
The officers were referring only to themselves when saying they were with the PD, and neither they nor the Apple employees noted that two of them weren't with the PD but merely employees of a corporation.
Whether the Apple employees saw the PD introduction as a convenient way to imply they had some official status themselves and "willfully chose" not to disclose their true role, or whether they simply "forgot", cannot be known by us here in this forum.
Either way, short of a confession of "willfully misleading" by the Apple employees it would be impossible to prove such a claim, so I expect this will not result in any legal repercussions for Apple.
For the officers it may be a different matter. At a minimum, it's seems they failed to file the required reports for such a dispatch.
But what remains to be found is whether this was an official dispatch at all, or merely friends of the Apple security chief who happen to be members of the force and went out on their own time to help him.
If it turns out this was not official police business but merely a favor, there may be implications for those policemen who chose to present it as official PD business to Calderon.
Even that seems unlikely to result in anything more than a reprimand at most, and again will have no repercussions for Apple.
I would agree with all of that, other than the implications of the scope of the introduction. If the officer introduced the group as police officers, then they have introduced the group as police officers. If this introduction was used to convince Calderon that they were all cops, then that was deceptive, though not necessarily intentionally so.
Well established? Well established by whom? Police not prohibited from obtaining consent to search under false pretenses, i.e. fraudulent terms. They don't necessarily have to be fully forth coming, but they are not allowed to use undue duress or deception to gain consent. They are granted a lot of leeway for using deceit during investigations and interrogations, but gaining consent for search is a different story.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court sufficient?
http://www.criminalattorney.com/news...an-lie-to-you/
Is the U.S. Supreme Court sufficient?
http://www.criminalattorney.com/news...an-lie-to-you/
sigh. I hoped by specifying that they are allowed to lie during the course of an investigation but not in order to gain consent to search you would at least provide a link dealing with fraudulently gained consent to search. You did not. I dreamed to high, I suppose.
Now, for Supreme Court decision, that actually, you know, deals with deception used to gain consent to search.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/391/543/case.html
In the end, police probably are granted some leeway in being allowed to lie to gain consent. But that leeway is not total, as it might be with a private citizen. Private security falls between these two groups and may have the same restrictions that police have. In fact, they may have more restrictions because they do not technically have the same authorities.
which would mean the officers had leave to search the premises, not Apple staff
No. If you give consent to allow a GROUP of people to search your property, any or all of that group of people can search your property. If you specifically don't want certain people in the group to come into your home, you should tell them. My understanding is that he consented to search. His complaint seems to be he thought they were all police.
No. If you give consent to allow a GROUP of people to search your property, any or all of that group of people can search your property. If you specifically don't want certain people in the group to come into your home, you should tell them. My understanding is that he consented to search. His complaint seems to be he thought they were all police.
And that he thought he was granting permission to the police to conduct the search not private security personnel.
And yes, it is absolutely plausible that 4 or 6 people that screwed up might want to gloss over their actions. Just as plausible that Calderon is a lying thief.
I think you're arguing a different point than most of us. I agree with your sentence completely. However that isn't what we're addressing. I would argue (and did above) that the 4 or 6 people wouldn't have messed up because they would know better.
I would say it is less plausible that Apple personnel and cops would knowingly break the law than it is that Calderon is a lying thief. Cops and Apple have more to lose from breaking the law than an average citizen (if they are caught). Apple could face huge financial penalties, not to mention millions/billions in bad press. Cops would go to jail and lose any possibility of continuing in their profession. I think it is also generally accepted that at least Apple doesn't usually employe stupid people. If those two things can be agreed on then it makes more sense that the guys knocking on the door are less likely to have made the decision to do something wrong than the guy (whatever guy) who actually did take the iPhone.
There are lots more thieves than there are dirty cops...
I think you're arguing a different point than most of us. I agree with your sentence completely. However that isn't what we're addressing. I would argue (and did above) that the 4 or 6 people wouldn't have messed up because they would know better.
I would say it is less plausible that Apple personnel and cops would knowingly break the law than it is that Calderon is a lying thief. Cops and Apple have more to lose from breaking the law than an average citizen (if they are caught). Apple could face huge financial penalties, not to mention millions/billions in bad press. Cops would go to jail and lose any possibility of continuing in their profession. I think it is also generally accepted that at least Apple doesn't usually employe stupid people. If those two things can be agreed on then it makes more sense that the guys knocking on the door are less likely to have made the decision to do something wrong than the guy (whatever guy) who actually did take the iPhone.
-Every one of those reasons you give equally apply to whether they would be honest after the fact, if something dodgy went down.
-As smart and ethical as they may be, everyone is human and makes mistakes. Imagine the pressure and adrenaline rush of looking for a lost Apple prototype.
-The officers in question already put their credibility into question when the failed to document their involvement, against department policy.
-If they are caught. A month went by and if it wasn't for a leak to the press Calderon may never have come forward with his story. If not for his story, no one would 'get caught' for anything in this case.
But, as we agree, there is too little information to make any determinations. Apple isn't speaking and the police, after their mis-statements seem to have clammed up and are investigating internally.
There are lots more thieves than there are dirty cops...
true, but as percentages of their totals, the might be a lot more dirty cops amongst all cops than there are thieves amongst the general population.
"It's not something we can just let pass," Dangerfield said.
Police officials said they were unable to confirm until Friday that a search had taken place because those involved did not file paperwork, at Apple's request.
So, the SFPD officers, knowing they were required by their own dept regulations to socument their involvement, kept it off the books at Apple's request? One of Apple employees, being a 26 year police veteran, would have known that was not a wise request and at least one of the officers should have know it was against regs, yet made they request anyway and the four officers present agreed.
The police are now framing this as a "civil standby", where they attended in order to ensure all parties were safe and secure. Yet, other than introductions, they don't seem to have done much to ensure anything. The SFPD acknowledges they waited outside while the Apple employees went with Calderon inside and presumably out of sight.
Yeah, nothing sketchy about this at all. But Calderon is the lying thief (with no evidence, charges, reported stolen property or accusations from those involved).
sigh. I hoped by specifying that they are allowed to lie during the course of an investigation but not in order to gain consent to search you would at least provide a link dealing with fraudulently gained consent to search. You did not. I dreamed to high, I suppose.
Now, for Supreme Court decision, that actually, you know, deals with deception used to gain consent to search.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/391/543/case.html
In the end, police probably are granted some leeway in being allowed to lie to gain consent. But that leeway is not total, as it might be with a private citizen. Private security falls between these two groups and may have the same restrictions that police have. In fact, they may have more restrictions because they do not technically have the same authorities.
That ruling says simply that the police can not tell someone that they have a warrant if they do not. It does not restrict any other lies.
Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence that the police lied at all in this case.
That ruling says simply that the police can not tell someone that they have a warrant if they do not. It does not restrict any other lies.
Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence that the police lied at all in this case.
By all means Joe, find a reference that details exactly what lies they might be allowed to tell in order to gain consent for a warrant-less search. Your original link had nothing at all to do with consent searches, mine did. Yes, that was a specific and extreme example of police lying, but an example nonetheless. You have yet to cite anything related.
As I said, I do believe they have some leeway in using deception to gain consent. I just don't think it is quite a limitless as you.
Edit: More for you Joe.
Bosse was a licensed firearms dealer with a pending application to sell machine guns. An agent from the State of California arrived at Bosse’s home to inspect his premises and the surrounding area as part of the application process. A federal ATF agent accompanied the state agent but failed to identify himself as such. The state agent merely told Bosse that the federal agent “is with me.” Bosse gave the agents consent for the purpose of conducting the licensing inspection. In fact the ATF agent was present for the independent purpose of furthering a federal criminal investigation into Bosse’s firearms activity.
The federal agent testified that he used the access to Bosse’s home to prepare diagrams of the layout of the house in preparation for obtaining a search warrant. A court subsequently issued a search warrant and federal agents seized an illegal sawed-off shotgun, which resulted in Bosse’s indictment. Bosse then argued that the shotgun was seized as a direct result of the ATF agent’s illegal search of his residence.
While the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further findings, it did condemn the actions by the ATF agent. The court found that the misrepresentation of the ATF agent’s purpose and position invalidated Bosse’s consent. The court stated, “We think it is clearly improper for a government agent to gain access to records which would otherwise be unavailable to him by invoking the private individual’s trust in his government, only to betray that trust.” The 9th circuit reiterated that a known government agent who misrepresents his true purpose for entry cannot rely on consent to justify that entry. United States v. Bosse, 898 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1990).
In an earlier 9th Circuit case, the court disapproved of the entry of federal agents into a home that was accomplished with the assistance of local police officers. The local officers requested to enter to investigate a fictitious burglary. The officers used this ruse in order to gain access to the defendant in his own home for the purpose of placing him under arrest without first obtaining an arrest warrant. United States v. Phillips, 497 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1974).
The 5th Circuit also found consent to be invalid when a suspect turned over tax records to an IRS revenue agent who represented that he was conducting a civil audit. The suspect’s accountant asked the revenue agent if a “special agent” was involved in the matter. The revenue agent stated that no special agent was involved. In fact, the revenue agent was conducting the audit at the request of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Department of Justice. Because of the revenue agent’s statements implying the lack of an existing criminal investigation, the defendant made some records available to the revenue agent who then microfilmed all of the records. On remand, the 5th Circuit stated, “It is a well established rule that a consent search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the consent was induced by deceit, trickery or misrepresentation of the Internal Revenue agent.” United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977).
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-prototype.ars
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18816728
..."When they came to my house, they said they were SFPD. I thought they were SFPD. That's why I let them in." Calderón told the paper that he only agreed to the search because he assumed the two people conducting it were police officers.
Calderón also told the paper that the people he let inside his house asked threatening questions about him and his family, including references to his immigration status. "One of the officers is like, 'Is everyone in this house an American citizen?' " Calderón is quoted as saying in the SF Weekly article. "They said we were all going to get into trouble."
In the SF Weekly article, Dangerfield stressed the seriousness of Calderón's allegations. "This is something that's going to need to be investigated now," he told the paper. "If this guy is saying that the people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal."
å
SF Weekly said one of the men left a phone number with Calderón, which the paper traced to Anthony Colon. According to a public profile on the website LinkedIn, Colon, a former San Jose police sergeant, is employed as a "senior investigator" at Apple.
By all means Joe, find a reference that details exactly what lies they might be allowed to tell in order to gain consent for a warrant-less search. Your original link had nothing at all to do with consent searches, mine did. Yes, that was a specific and extreme example of police lying, but an example nonetheless. You have yet to cite anything related.
As I said, I do believe they have some leeway in using deception to gain consent. I just don't think it is quite a limitless as you.
Edit: More for you Joe.
Sorry, that article is about an ATF agent, not a police officer.
The article I provided says quite clearly that the police can lie about almost anything except claiming that they already have a warrant. In fact, it says that the only time the police have to tell the truth is when testifying under oath.
Sorry, that article is about an ATF agent, not a police officer.
The article I provided says quite clearly that the police can lie about almost anything except claiming that they already have a warrant. In fact, it says that the only time the police have to tell the truth is when testifying under oath.
The article you linked has NOTHING to do with what they are or are not allowed to say in attempting to gain a consent search. I've now given you four examples of police not being allowed to lie in order to gain consent to search. You've failed to provide even a single example of police being allowed to lie in that case. Not one.
Sorry, Joe, but that's another fail. Just like old times on the advocacy boards. You've got me all nostalgic.