Media request to unseal docs in Gizmodo iPhone case rejected
A request filed by the Associated Press and other media organization to obtain the sealed affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for the raid on Gizmodo blogger Jason Chen's home has been denied.
Judge Stephen Hall of San Mateo County refused to consider the request, instead deferring the case to the judge who granted the search warrant, who will hear arguments on the matter next week, according to a report filed by CNET.
The request was opposed by the District Attorney's office, which argued in a legal brief that prosecutors needed to "maintain the security of an ongoing investigation, which may well be compromised by the disclosure of the search warrant affidavit."
At issue in the affidavit are the names of "two individuals of interest, whom police do not want to alert," the report said, citing comments from an attorney for the media coalition filling the brief who spoke with chief deputy district attorney Stephen Wagstaffe.
Wagstaffe said the affidavit is "not a public record and thus is not subject to requests under any public-records act" and defended the decision to search Chen's home, saying, "our belief is that it's a proper search."
The EFF and other media groups have criticized the search as being improper because Chen's home office could be considered a newsroom, and therefore protected under shield laws designed to prevent police from investigating journalists' sources.
However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist.
Judge Stephen Hall of San Mateo County refused to consider the request, instead deferring the case to the judge who granted the search warrant, who will hear arguments on the matter next week, according to a report filed by CNET.
The request was opposed by the District Attorney's office, which argued in a legal brief that prosecutors needed to "maintain the security of an ongoing investigation, which may well be compromised by the disclosure of the search warrant affidavit."
At issue in the affidavit are the names of "two individuals of interest, whom police do not want to alert," the report said, citing comments from an attorney for the media coalition filling the brief who spoke with chief deputy district attorney Stephen Wagstaffe.
Wagstaffe said the affidavit is "not a public record and thus is not subject to requests under any public-records act" and defended the decision to search Chen's home, saying, "our belief is that it's a proper search."
The EFF and other media groups have criticized the search as being improper because Chen's home office could be considered a newsroom, and therefore protected under shield laws designed to prevent police from investigating journalists' sources.
However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist.
Comments
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.
It's an on going investigation.
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.
I presume their attorneys told them they had no shot, but they did it to score some pr points in hopes of deflecting blame on them.
It's an on going investigation.
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.
because they are 88s... read it aloud...
However, prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist.
Like many expected.
The thing was lost, was then leaked, and life will (and should) go on.
It's an on going investigation.
What makes them think that they have the rights to get their hands on those documents.
If the affidavit is unsealed as a result of the request then they have every right. There has to be more to legitimize sealing an affidavit and keeping it sealed than simply because the investigation is "on going." There may be legitimate reasons here, but that ain't it.
So much for "openness".
What has legal procedure got to do with your opinion of Apple's business practice?
If the affidavit is unsealed as a result of the request then they have every right. There has to be more to legitimize sealing an affidavit and keeping it sealed than simply because the investigation is "on going." There may be legitimate reasons here, but that ain't it.
perhaps you missed this part:
"The request was opposed by the District Attorney's office, which argued in a legal brief that prosecutors needed to "maintain the security of an ongoing investigation, which may well be compromised by the disclosure of the search warrant affidavit."
At issue in the affidavit are the names of "two individuals of interest, whom police do not want to alert," the report said, citing comments from an attorney for the media coalition filling the brief who spoke with chief deputy district attorney Stephen Wagstaffe."
They are aware that they may have skirted (read: broken) one of their own laws via raiding Chen's home, and therefore are attempting to avoid it completely, attempting to utilize the "theft" issue in the forefront, hoping no one will notice they raided whom they also believe (by omission) a journalist's home.
Media is always a read between the lines event.
The issue at hand was the actual justification for raiding his home. Apple had their property back.
They knew who had the item before it got to Chen (via Gawker).
They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.
Yet they raided Chen's home?
The only viable reason for this is to attempt to search his files in his databases to find his sources without going through a lengthy legal battle.
The judge didn't want to touch it because he knows it's shaky legal ground to stand on.
And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?
This is more than whether Chen stole the phone (he did not), it's a very alarming precedent.
If you feel a reporter is not going to give up his sources AND he has legal protections, state he broke the law and seize his notebooks.
Legal hurdle completely eliminated rather than negotiated.
The pint missed is they are skating by the question as to whether Chen has the rights of a journalist. They say as much in their statement.
They are aware that they may have skirted (read: broken) one of their own laws via raiding Chen's home, and therefore are attempting to avoid it completely, attempting to utilize the "theft" issue in the forefront, hoping no one will notice they raided whom they also believe (by omission) a journalist's home.
Media is always a read between the lines event.
The issue at hand was the actual justification for raiding his home. Apple had their property back.
They knew who had the item before it got to Chen (via Gawker).
They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.
Yet they raided Chen's home?
The only viable reason for this is to attempt to search his files in his databases to find his sources without going through a lengthy legal battle.
The judge didn't want to touch it because he knows it's shaky legal ground to stand on.
And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?
This is more than whether Chen stole the phone (he did not), it's a very alarming precedent.
If you feel a reporter is not going to give up his sources AND he has legal protections, state he broke the law and seize his notebooks.
Legal hurdle completely eliminated rather than negotiated.
Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime? If the guy had given the phone to Chen there would be no issue here at all. But $5000?!!?? Chen is an idiot. The press really are pathetic.
Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime?
beat me to it.
The pint missed is they are skating by the question as to whether Chen has the rights of a journalist. They say as much in their statement.
They are aware that they may have skirted (read: broken) one of their own laws via raiding Chen's home, and therefore are attempting to avoid it completely, attempting to utilize the "theft" issue in the forefront, hoping no one will notice they raided whom they also believe (by omission) a journalist's home.
Media is always a read between the lines event.
The issue at hand was the actual justification for raiding his home. Apple had their property back.
They knew who had the item before it got to Chen (via Gawker).
They were fully aware neither Chen nor Gawker actually participated in the act of "stealing" the item.
Yet they raided Chen's home?
The only viable reason for this is to attempt to search his files in his databases to find his sources without going through a lengthy legal battle.
The judge didn't want to touch it because he knows it's shaky legal ground to stand on.
And believe what you like, but they are going through Chen's computers while saying they aren't. They have the forensic software and knowledge to do that. And they can say they are following the injunction, but who is to know since they have custody and Chen isn't standing over their shoulders to see they are not?
This is more than whether Chen stole the phone (he did not), it's a very alarming precedent.
If you feel a reporter is not going to give up his sources AND he has legal protections, state he broke the law and seize his notebooks.
Legal hurdle completely eliminated rather than negotiated.
You're not reading between the lines, you're making things up. You're ascribing motives to people with no evidence to back it up.
Chen, on behalf of Gawker, bought stolen property. They knew it did not belong to the person who sold it to them, so they KNOWINGLY bought stolen property. They then defaced it by tearing it apart, and they revealed corporate trade secrets by publishing photos (California has a strict law regarding trade secrets).
The affadavit will be made public at some point - it's no big deal that it's not immediately unsealed.
And what exactly do you think the police are looking for in the files of a two-bit tech journalist? You think they've been watching Chen, and just waiting for this chance to look through his files? Get real.
Give it a rest. How many times do people like you need to be told that buying stolen property is a crime? If the guy had given the phone to Chen there would be no issue here at all. But $5000?!!?? Chen is an idiot. The press really are pathetic.
You are parsing the law in your fanatical favor.
You should give it a rest.
There, again, is no proof of "purchasing" stolen property, and the moment you recognize that this is Apple's war against the press and bloggers and leaks and not about the item itself, the moment you will be enlightened. :rolls eyes:
You're not reading between the lines, you're making things up. You're ascribing motives to people with no evidence to back it up.
Chen, on behalf of Gawker, bought stolen property. They knew it did not belong to the person who sold it to them, so they KNOWINGLY bought stolen property. They then defaced it by tearing it apart, and they revealed corporate trade secrets by publishing photos (California has a strict law regarding trade secrets).
The affadavit will be made public at some point - it's no big deal that it's not immediately unsealed.
And what exactly do you think the police are looking for in the files of a two-bit tech journalist? You think they've been watching Chen, and just waiting for this chance to look through his files? Get real.
And you know this HOW again? Via the tabloid reporting that is written for controversy or have you interviewed Chen and all parties involved?
Were you there when it happened?
As has been stated, VIA THIS STORY, the investigation is "ongoing" and therefore no conclusions have even been made that a crime was even committed, but somehow you know one has?
Are you on the legal team? Do you work with the task force?
If so, you probably shouldn't even be posting here, as you may be compromising the investigation.
If not, then apparently YOU are making things up.
....and also attempting to put words in my mouth as what you stated doesn't even match what I posted.
...which goes back to YOU making things up.
The EFF and other media groups have criticized the search as being improper because Chen's home office could be considered a newsroom, and therefore protected under shield laws designed to prevent police from investigating journalists' sources.
anyone want to come over to my newsroom and place a wager on when and for how long journalist jason chen will be in the county jail? wagers start at, say, five thousand.
You are parsing the law in your fanatical favor.
You should give it a rest.
There, again, is no proof of "purchasing" stolen property, and the moment you recognize that this is Apple's war against the press and bloggers and leaks and not about the item itself, the moment you will be enlightened. :rolls eyes:
"prosecutors say the search was related to a felony theft investigation rather than simply being an effort to determine Chen's sources as a journalist."