Crime blotter: Pro wrestlers' Find My iPhone expedition ends predictably

Posted:
in iPhone
In the latest Apple Crime Blotter, an arrest is made in a 2021 Apple Store theft, an iPhone warehouse theft, and one state bans filming the police.

The Apple Store in Greenwich
The Apple Store in Greenwich


The latest in an occasional AppleInsider series, looking at the world of Apple-related crime.

Arrest made in smash-and-grab at Apple Store in Greenwich

Smash-and-grab thefts at Apple Store locations have become relatively rare of late. But an arrest was made in one this week, from a theft that took place last August.

According to The Register Citizen, police have made an arrest in an Apple Store break-in that took place in August of 2021. $12,000 in merchandise was taken, including 13 iPhones and a set of headphones. A 22-year-old man, already in jail on an unrelated charge, was charged with third-degree burglary and second-degree larceny.

Pro wrestlers use Find My iPhone to recover stolen AirPods

A man and woman who happen to work as professional wrestlers used Find My iPhone to successfully track down the woman's purse after it was stolen on a plane.

PW Insider reports the wrestlers, known as Bryan Idol and Natalia Markova of the NWA, were flying to Florida and noticed that Markova's purse had been stolen after landing. The two realized Markova's AirPods were in the purse and used Find My iPhone, ultimately tracking the purse to a Walmart 40 minutes away.

When they arrived, Markova received an alert indicating that her credit card was being used.

Perhaps true to their profession, the two confronted the thief and tackled him.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by PWInsider.com (@pwinsider)

The stolen items were recovered, but while police arrested the man, the wrestlers declined to press charges.

Arizona law makes it illegal to film the police within eight feet

Numerous cases of police misconduct in recent years have been captured with smartphone cameras, including the killing of George Floyd, which was filmed with an iPhone.

Now, Arizona has passed a law to make it illegal to film law enforcement activity within eight feet. According to Axios, the new law is meant to "protect police officers from harm."

Numerous groups, including the ACLU, have called the new law unconstitutional.

A bill in Ohio, in 2021, would have instituted a similar ban, but it was amended following a public controversy.

Two charged with theft of nearly 100 Apple devices from warehouse

Two men in Florida were charged in late June with stealing nearly 100 Apple devices from a Best Buy warehouse in Texas. According to Wear TV, the two men were caught when they were pulled over in a stolen vehicle, one that also contained drugs.

The Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office described the items as "92 factory-sealed Apple devices," which appeared to mostly be various MacBooks.

Apple Watch may have helped solve a murder

A 2021 murder that took place in Upper Darby, Pa., near Philadelphia, may have been solved due to an Apple Watch that was left in a car tied to the case.

The Delaware County Times says police found a blue Volkswagen reportedly involved in the crime. In it, they discovered a distinctive Rose Gold Apple Watch.

When the car was turned on, the watch synched with the car stereo, bringing up the nickname "Big 53." After an Apple search warrant, that handle was tracked to an individual, who was later arrested for the murder.

Man has iPhone, other items stolen by a woman he met at a bar

A man, having spent a night with "a red-headed woman he met at a Fort Lauderdale bar," woke up to find various valuables stolen, including his iPhone 12 Pro, The Miami Herald reported.

The man, who was drugged with GHB, lost over $52,500 worth of items, including the iPhone, two expensive watches, and $1,000 in cash.

Evidence from seized iPhone used in child pornography indictment

A Massachusetts man has been indicted on federal child pornography charges after authorities seized his iPhone and laptop and found the offending images.

The same man had been convicted in 2002 on similar charges.

Apple products burglarized from Harvard dorms

The Harvard University Police Department has warned of a series of break-ins and thefts in the university's dorms. The Boston Globe reports one break-in at Wigglesworth Hall resulted in thefts of an Apple iPad Pro, Apple Pencil, and a pair of Airpods.

A separate break-in involved the theft of a MacBook Air.

iCloud video used to convict FaceTime-using drug dealer

A 50-year-old Pennsylvania man described as a "recidivist drug-ring leader" was sentenced to 15 years in prison on drug charges. The man, per a news report, often used FaceTime to confer with underlings, rather than texts or phone calls.

According to The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, part of the evidence that convicted the man came from his iCloud account, in which the man "showed off a stack of some $200,000 while his girlfriend warned him that he should not be videotaping himself with so much cash."

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 1,023member

    Arizona law makes it illegal to film the police within eight feet

    Numerous cases of police misconduct in recent years have been captured with smartphone cameras, including the killing of George Floyd, which was filmed with an iPhone.

    Now, Arizona has passed a law to make it illegal to film law enforcement activity within eight feet. According to Axios, the new law is meant to "protect police officers from harm."

    Numerous groups, including the ACLU, have called the new law unconstitutional.

    A bill in Ohio, in 2021, would have instituted a similar ban, but it was amended following a public controversy.

    Read on AppleInsider

     "protect police officers from harm." Really? Harm in the way of them doing the wrong, then getting caught on video, and then them losing their jobs? Police are public servants in that taxpayers are paying their salaries. We have every right to film them, regardless if it's 1 foot or 100 feet away.
    StrangeDaysBart Y
  • Reply 2 of 10

    iCloud video used to convict FaceTime-using drug dealer

    A 50-year-old Pennsylvania man described as a "recidivist drug-ring leader" was sentenced to 15 years in prison on drug charges. The man, per a news report, often used FaceTime to confer with underlings, rather than texts or phone calls.

    According to The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, part of the evidence that convicted the man came from his iCloud account, in which the man "showed off a stack of some $200,000 while his girlfriend warned him that he should not be videotaping himself with so much cash."

    Read on AppleInsider
    How does this work when FaceTime is end-to-end encrypted? AFAIK, no FaceTime calls are stored in iCloud, and if they were there’s still the encryption. Methinks that he made FaceTime calls is unrelated to the video that he got busted over. 
    amar99watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 10
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 1,112member
    The Arizona scenario I’m picturing is someone shooting video of the police from 10 feet away, then an officer walks or runs towards them and arrests them because they are no longer 8+ feet away. Even if a court later decided in favor of the cameraperson, the video evidence that they were trying to capture would be incomplete. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 10
    zeus423zeus423 Posts: 242member
    If we could only get people to quit committing crime, resisting arrest, and shooting at police officers, then we wouldn't have silly laws like the one in AZ.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 10
    The Arizona scenario I’m picturing is someone shooting video of the police from 10 feet away, then an officer walks or runs towards them and arrests them because they are no longer 8+ feet away. Even if a court later decided in favor of the cameraperson, the video evidence that they were trying to capture would be incomplete. 

    I'm assuming this exact scenario will happen, and the cameraperson will not be acquitted.  Hopefully, that person has enough money to take it to the Ninth Circuit.

    The other one is an officer approaching a static camera, such as a doorbell camera or an automobile dash cam, to within 8 feet.  Is that illegal?  For whom?
    FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 6 of 10
    The Arizona scenario I’m picturing is someone shooting video of the police from 10 feet away, then an officer walks or runs towards them and arrests them because they are no longer 8+ feet away. Even if a court later decided in favor of the cameraperson, the video evidence that they were trying to capture would be incomplete. 

    I'm assuming this exact scenario will happen, and the cameraperson will not be acquitted.  Hopefully, that person has enough money to take it to the Ninth Circuit.

    The other one is an officer approaching a static camera, such as a doorbell camera or an automobile dash cam, to within 8 feet.  Is that illegal?  For whom?
    I can see where the legislators are coming from - if a scuffle takes place, the last thing you want is a bystander being drawn into the conflict, being harmed (perhaps shot), taken hostage, etc. Filming or not, I personally would want to stay out of reach of a lunging combatant; I would also not want to be a distraction for any of the people involved, especially police officers. So the distance specified seems reasonable.

    But I also think the law has only been written from that one perspective (or perhaps a very limited set of perspectives) rather than taking a holistic view that accounts for just about every conceivable circumstance. Did everyone assume that anything a police officer does is prima facie well-intentioned, legal and beyond question?

    Law makers need the equivalent of a penetration test rather than relying on the courts to find vulnerabilities.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,881member
    zeus423 said:
    If we could only get people to quit committing crime, resisting arrest, and shooting at police officers, then we wouldn't have silly laws like the one in AZ.
    If only bullies with guns would stop murdering unarmed suspects, then we wouldn’t have to film them to prove it since they routinely lie about it. 
    ronnbeowulfschmidtBart Y
  • Reply 8 of 10
    ajminnjajminnj Posts: 40member
    The Arizona scenario I’m picturing is someone shooting video of the police from 10 feet away, then an officer walks or runs towards them and arrests them because they are no longer 8+ feet away. Even if a court later decided in favor of the cameraperson, the video evidence that they were trying to capture would be incomplete. 

    I'm assuming this exact scenario will happen, and the cameraperson will not be acquitted.  Hopefully, that person has enough money to take it to the Ninth Circuit.

    The other one is an officer approaching a static camera, such as a doorbell camera or an automobile dash cam, to within 8 feet.  Is that illegal?  For whom?
    There is an indepth review of this law on YouTube by Steve Lehto (a Michigan lawyer) where he talks about the exceptions, including if you are the subject of the officer's attention then there is no limit.  Also if you are in a car or private property with the subject of the officer's attention there is also no limit.   As Steve Lehto points out, is it really hard to believe that you will not get some knucklehead who tries to stick a camera right in an officer's face as he is trying to do his job.  The 15 feet in the original draft was too far, but I believe that the 8 feet is a good compromise between the public's right to record officers and officer safety.  Also just being within the 8 feet is not an automatic violation.  The officer needs to ask you to back up beyond 8 feet.  If you do not back up to 8 feet, then it is a violation.
    edited July 2022
  • Reply 9 of 10
    ajminnj said:
    The Arizona scenario I’m picturing is someone shooting video of the police from 10 feet away, then an officer walks or runs towards them and arrests them because they are no longer 8+ feet away. Even if a court later decided in favor of the cameraperson, the video evidence that they were trying to capture would be incomplete. 

    I'm assuming this exact scenario will happen, and the cameraperson will not be acquitted.  Hopefully, that person has enough money to take it to the Ninth Circuit.

    The other one is an officer approaching a static camera, such as a doorbell camera or an automobile dash cam, to within 8 feet.  Is that illegal?  For whom?
    There is an indepth review of this law on YouTube by Steve Lehto (a Michigan lawyer) where he talks about the exceptions, including if you are the subject of the officer's attention then there is no limit.  Also if you are in a car or private property with the subject of the officer's attention there is also no limit.   As Steve Lehto points out, is it really hard to believe that you will not get some knucklehead who tries to stick a camera right in an officer's face as he is trying to do his job.  The 15 feet in the original draft was too far, but I believe that the 8 feet is a good compromise between the public's right to record officers and officer safety.  Also just being within the 8 feet is not an automatic violation.  The officer needs to ask you to back up beyond 8 feet.  If you do not back up to 8 feet, then it is a violation.
    That would be good.  But you know that someone in one of those situations will be charged anyway at some point, because that's what cops do, and it will be up to the defendant to show why the charge doesn't apply, because the courts want the revenue resulting from the charge.
    ronn
Sign In or Register to comment.