California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor
Armed with a warrant, California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home last week and seized four computers and two servers in its felony investigation of an obtained prototype iPhone.
Gizmodo revealed the information, along with a copy of the warrant issued by a judge of the superior court in San Mateo County, Calif. In response, the website's post argued that it believes the warrant was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.
The warrant states that there was probable cause that Chen's computers were "used as the means of committing a felony." The REACT authorities entered Chen's home without him present, according to Gizmodo.
A full inventory of the seized material includes a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and many more. The items were removed from numerous rooms in his home.
An account of the events by Chen was also filed. The Gizmodo editor said he and his wife came back home from dinner around 9:45 p.m. when they noticed their garage door was half-open. When he tried to open the door, officers searched him and informed him that his property was under their control.
Chen's front door was reportedly broken open so the authorities could enter, and those on the scene informed him that he could be reimbursed for the damage. Chen was provided with a copy of the warrant, and declined to comment to the authorities. He was not arrested.
Last week it was revealed that police are investigating the Gizmodo purchase of a prototype iPhone from Apple. The publication's parent company, Gawker Media, has openly admitted it paid $5,000 to obtain the device from a man who claimed he found it at a California bar.
The prototype handset was allegedly left at the Redwood City, Calif., establishment by an Apple engineer. The employee frantically searched for the device, calling the bar multiple times to see if it had been returned, but the owner of the bar said no one ever contacted him to say they had found an iPhone. Gizmodo claimed that the person who found the phone attempted to call Apple and did not receive a response.
Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple after the Cupertino, Calif., company requested it be given back, but not before the publication wrote numerous stories about the device and revealed the name of the engineer who allegedly lost the device. The website also disassembled the hardware to confirm it was manufactured by Apple.
Gizmodo revealed the information, along with a copy of the warrant issued by a judge of the superior court in San Mateo County, Calif. In response, the website's post argued that it believes the warrant was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.
The warrant states that there was probable cause that Chen's computers were "used as the means of committing a felony." The REACT authorities entered Chen's home without him present, according to Gizmodo.
A full inventory of the seized material includes a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and many more. The items were removed from numerous rooms in his home.
An account of the events by Chen was also filed. The Gizmodo editor said he and his wife came back home from dinner around 9:45 p.m. when they noticed their garage door was half-open. When he tried to open the door, officers searched him and informed him that his property was under their control.
Chen's front door was reportedly broken open so the authorities could enter, and those on the scene informed him that he could be reimbursed for the damage. Chen was provided with a copy of the warrant, and declined to comment to the authorities. He was not arrested.
Last week it was revealed that police are investigating the Gizmodo purchase of a prototype iPhone from Apple. The publication's parent company, Gawker Media, has openly admitted it paid $5,000 to obtain the device from a man who claimed he found it at a California bar.
The prototype handset was allegedly left at the Redwood City, Calif., establishment by an Apple engineer. The employee frantically searched for the device, calling the bar multiple times to see if it had been returned, but the owner of the bar said no one ever contacted him to say they had found an iPhone. Gizmodo claimed that the person who found the phone attempted to call Apple and did not receive a response.
Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple after the Cupertino, Calif., company requested it be given back, but not before the publication wrote numerous stories about the device and revealed the name of the engineer who allegedly lost the device. The website also disassembled the hardware to confirm it was manufactured by Apple.
Comments
The way they exposed Grays name was so sleazy, this is just really beautiful karma. I hope Nick does the right thing and has lots of cash for lawyers. The individual who allegedly found the phone and sold it to Giz (if thats what really happened) has got to be pissing in his pants right now...
This soap opera just keeps getting better and better.
Rob
OOOOooooh ain't karma a MOTHER!
There is a direct link here that I think this is better defined as causation or cause and effect.
There is a direct link here that I think this is better defined as causation or cause and effect.
Absolutely!
Welp, I'm off to go bet my retirement savings on gizmodos future on intrade.com.........
Rob
This is pretty crazy. Assuming the evidence doesn't get thrown out, we'll finally get to see the truthfulness of Gizmodo's claims.
Yeah, the law being what it is nowadays, it's unlikely these guys will ever get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Little rich kids like them don't go to jail over anything like this.
I'm really interested in finding out what exactly happened though regardless of whether they get off or not. As Gruber first pointed out, Chen and Lam have been editing the story of what happened on their website over the last few weeks. What they *say* happened has been changing back and forth a bit, it will be interesting to find out what *actually* happened once and for all.
I'm guessing that until the identity of the original thief is known and until they are arrested and questioned, that we won't really have a good idea of what the real story is.
ooooooooh ain't karma a bitch!
the way they exposed grays name was so sleazy, this is just really beautiful karma.
This soap opera just keeps getting better and better.
Rob
amen.
End transmission.
Yeah, the law being what it is nowadays, it's unlikely these guys will ever get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Little rich kids like them don't go to jail over anything like this.
I'm really interested in finding out what exactly happened though regardless of whether they get off or not. As Gruber first pointed out, Chen and Lam have been editing the story of what happened on their website over the last few weeks. What they *say* happened has been changing back and forth a bit, it will be interesting to find out what *actually* happened once and for all.
I'm guessing that until the identity of the original thief is known and until they are arrested and questioned, that we won't really have a good idea of what the real story is.
I don't know that Jail is the answer or a fitting punishment, but little rich kids are hurt most by a hit to the wallet. Legal fees.
Plus, if whoever decided to run the story on Gray Powell gets his own reputation ruined and career destroyed, I'd find it a fitting and just conclusion to this fiasco.
It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. It has ramifications way beyond a story about Apple.
I think the fact that you made Steve call you instead of just giving up the iPhone probably made this a reality. And it really didn't help that you made that snarky remark when posting the letter from Apple's attorney requesting the phone back.
And that is very, very disturbing.
I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.
And that is very, very disturbing.
I'll wait for all of this to play out, but I'm pretty close to swearing off Apple products for good.
Why? Because someone may have broken the law and stole an Apple prototype and then sold it to 2-bit trash?
I am surprised that they didn't perform the search early in the morning when they probably would have been home. Would have saved the tax payers a little money on the damage they did.
Normally a Search Warrant has a specific time that the search may occur. When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. This Search Warrant seemed pretty broad.
A good defense lawyer would have a field day with this.
HAHAHH.
End transmission.
In addition, hee HEE hee hee hee HAAWWWW!