New Report Details Inside Look at San Francisco Police Department Undercover Stolen iPhone Sting

Peace · Apr 29, 2013

dukebound85 said:
How is it entrapment? Why should apple be ashamed

Honest sellers wouldn't have hassles with the law

"In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability."

Who's to say the person targeted by the seller was actively looking for a stolen phone to purchase ? If he wasn't that would be the definition of entrapment.

ptb42 · Apr 29, 2013

Terrin said:
I would not believe it without a recording.

Again, if you read the article, they are recording the transaction.

And if you read to the end of the article, you will find they had to release the guy described in the MacRumors excerpt, because they discover that the undercover officer didn't inform him the phone was stolen.

alexander25 · Apr 29, 2013

the only problem is, if someone steals an iPhone and they sell it, they won't disclose to you that the phone is stolen.

this is stupid.

iSee · Apr 29, 2013

According to the article, the undercover cop tells the prospective buyers that the phones are stolen. That rules out entrapment, I think.

However, I wonder about the efficacy of this. It seems like you'd get a lot more benefit from targeting the sellers, especially bigger ones. I can't see how nailing a handful of small time buyers is going to accomplish anything because there are 1000 more for each one they pick up. It would have to be a massive operation to put a dent in the market (and then you have another problem: what are you going to do with all these small time crooks?)

Peace · Apr 29, 2013

ptb42 said:
Again, if you read the article, they are recording the transaction.

And if you read to the end of the article, you will find they had to release the guy described in the MacRumors excerpt, because they discover that the undercover officer didn't inform him the phone was stolen.

iSee said:
According to the article, the undercover cop tells the prospective buyers that the phones are stolen. That rules out entrapment, I think.

However, I wonder about the efficacy of this. It seems like you'd get a lot more benefit from targeting the sellers, especially bigger ones. I can't see how nailing a handful of small time buyers is going to accomplish anything because there are 1000 more for each one they pick up. It would have to be a massive operation to put a dent in the market (and then you have another problem: what are you going to do with all these small time crooks?)

Which is it ? They are telling buyers they are stolen or they aren't.

If they are doing both I would say they are trying to entrap would be buyers.

jcb10 · Apr 29, 2013

Squilly said:
Yet how are the buyers supposed to know they're stolen? Not their fault.

The first paragraph of the article: "He stole these phones, he tells potential customers, before asking them to make an offer."

----------

alexander25 said:
the only problem is, if someone steals an iPhone and they sell it, they won't disclose to you that the phone is stolen.

this is stupid.

And then you won't be in trouble -- as noted in the story when they released a guy after they realized they forgot to tell him the phone was stolen.

Weaselboy · Apr 29, 2013

iSee said:
According to the article, the undercover cop tells the prospective buyers that the phones are stolen. That rules out entrapment, I think.

Informing the buyer the phone is stolen will help with a conviction because the buyer knew the phone was stolen. So this will make it easier for the prosecutor to prove the crime (attempted possession of stolen property). But it still does not completely rule out entrapment. Part of the test for entrapment is have you (police) induced someone to do something (crime) they would not ordinarily have done.

From reading the article it appears (although this is not clear) the undercover officer is approaching people and mentioning he has some new-in-box iPhones to sell, then at some point telling prospective buyers the phones are stolen. If the officer is really actively approaching buyers, that is likely to be an entrapment defense used at trial.

The second problem I see with this is the price the police are selling some phones for. The article mentions the police have sold phones for as low as $25. So you can buy a new in box $500 iPhone for $25? That might be a good entrapment defense that the price was so good the defendant was enticed into doing something he ordinarily would not have done. Let's say the defense is able to show (with their private investigator) the average asking price for a stolen, new iPhone in the area is $150. Selling that same phone for $25 is going to make a pretty good entrapment defense that the defendant never would have bought the phone but for the unusually low price the police used. The article mentions the police don't "quote prices", but still, accepting $25 may create a valid entrapment defense.

This will be interesting to watch as it makes its way into the courts.

gnasher729 · Apr 29, 2013

somethingelsefl said:
You clearly don't know the definition of "entrapment": a defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials.

These were criminals that were knowingly buying stolen iPhones, and therefore clearly "likely" to commit the crime whether or not the police had setup the sting operation.

Read the original HuffPost article before you start spouting off things that simply aren't true.

I think there is one big problem here. These people didn't actually buy stolen iPhones. They were obviously willing to knowingly buy a stolen iPhone, and handed over money for an iPhone they believed was stolen, but the iPhones were not in fact stolen. I don't know if attempting to buy a stolen iPhone is a crime or not, but that would be the most these people could be charged with.

Just found this (from the UK):

R v Chalcroft and Campbell [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 42 (at 172); [2001] EWCA Crim. 2931
Pleaded guilty to attempting to handle stolen goods. The defendants agreed to buy stolen goods from an undercover police officer. The defendant believed that he was speaking to the burglar, discussed what should be burgled and anticipated a large profit. 10 months and 8 months.

So it seems it is not entrapment in the UK either. Probably depends very much on the details.

SockRolid · Apr 29, 2013

"I know what you're thinking: 'Did he fire six shots or only five?'
Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.
But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world,
and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question:
'Do I feel lucky?'
Well, do ya, punk?"

- Inspector Harry Callahan, SFPD (Clint Eastwood, "Dirty Harry," 1971)

(FYI: there is no Detective rank in the SFPD. Detectives are officially called "Inspectors.")

Weaselboy · Apr 29, 2013

gnasher729 said:
I think there is one big problem here. These people didn't actually buy stolen iPhones. They were obviously willing to knowingly buy a stolen iPhone, and handed over money for an iPhone they believed was stolen, but the iPhones were not in fact stolen. I don't know if attempting to buy a stolen iPhone is a crime or not, but that would be the most these people could be charged with.

Bingo. Attempted possession of stolen property is it in CA.

topper24hours · Apr 29, 2013

spb3 said:
that could be me in handcuffs, buying an iphone off of the craigslist.

Yup. IF you heard the words "I'll sell you this iPhone for only $100. I just stole it from the Apple store" and were enough of a douchebag to buy it anyways. Less confused now?

MrXiro · Apr 29, 2013

Ryth said:
Exactly.

Always cracks me up when people use some back---wards logic to defend illegal behavior.

Bull...

so a person who "REALLY" wants an iPhone happens upon what looks to be a great opportunity to get one and save some money... is considered a criminal to you?

This "sting" doesn't catch criminals it catches dim wits, people who don't know any better.

Stupid people and the mentally challenged don't always look like they have a problem. My wife used to work with a perfectly normal looking 24 year old girl who is quite attractive. At home she keeps her dead pet frog in the freezer and takes it out to play with every so often because she likes how it feels. She also had her perfectly good teeth removed so she could get fake ones put in because a mentally challenged person she was taking care of had fake ones put in and she liked the look of them. You offer this person a "stolen" phone and she'll take it based on the good deal not the morals of it. Her only crime would be, being infinitely stupid not because she's a "criminal".

ptb42 · Apr 29, 2013

Peace said:
Which is it ? They are telling buyers they are stolen or they aren't.

I believe the intention is to tell the buyer that the phone is stolen, so there is no question about entrapment. That's the reason for the recording.

However, for the person cited in the article, the undercover cop screwed up: he didn't inform the buyer it was stolen, so there was no crime committed. In addition, they may be reviewing the recording to make sure the buyer acknowledged that the phone was stolen, so the buyer can't complain he didn't hear that claim was made.

MrXiro · Apr 29, 2013

ptb42 said:
I believe the intention is to tell the buyer that the phone is stolen, so there is no question about entrapment. That's the reason for the recording.

However, for the person cited in the article, the undercover cop screwed up: he didn't inform the buyer it was stolen, so there was no crime committed. In addition, they may be reviewing the recording to make sure the buyer acknowledged that the phone was stolen, so the buyer can't complain he didn't hear that claim was made.

So one has to wonder then... how often are they actually telling the buyer it's stolen? And when they don't imagine the public embarrassment... this is ridiculous. Catch the thieves, don't make criminals out of regular people.

So this guy comes over to you. Offers you a deal of a lifetime for something you want and in exchange you just need to look the other way and bend the rules a little and then in exchange you go to jail.

I'm not a religious man but this sounds like a deal with the devil... and in this case the devil is the police.

MrXiro · Apr 29, 2013

QCassidy352 said:
This isn't entrapment. Entrapment requires two things: 1) that the police induce the suspect to commit the crime AND 2) that the suspect was not independently inclined to commit the crime. The first prong is easy to show, the second almost impossible.

So THIS isn't entrapment? It's straight from the article:

"Robert Tester, 20, of Brooklyn, was among those arrested. Tester said the undercover officer was "relentless" and insisted that he buy the iPhone, even after Tester refused. The officer claimed he needed money to buy his daughter Christmas presents, according to a federal lawsuit Tester filed against the city in January.

Tester bought the iPhone for $20 because he was "feeling sorry" for the seller and his daughter, his suit claims. He said he did not know the phone was stolen. The charges were dropped, but Tester claims his arrest made him miss work and caused him psychological injury. He is seeking $150,000 in damages. His suit is pending."

OrangeSVTguy · Apr 29, 2013

Quu said:
This is surprising to me that they are going after the buyers. I would assume that a large amount of buyers would be seeking a phone for themselves from this market meaning they are a one time buyer.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to arrest those selling? You know the people who are probably involved in the organised crime of stealing and fleecing the phones? Where stopping one person would remove more than just one transaction from the black market?

Much like all the shady resellers on craigslist that lowball the crap out of you? Those are the people you target for this kind of investigation

----------

tdiaz said:
I can see it now, Bait Phone.

Using the cameras inside the phone, it films what's happening with it, where it's going, who has it and what they say.

Now that would be a cool reality TV show. But I'm sure they would make up stories like all the other "reality shows" out there with bad acting and unlikely drama.

Sora · Apr 29, 2013

1. From the details described in the story - it's entrapment
2. Unless more information is provided i.e.: the background information - it may not qualify as entrapment (e.g.: emails/txt/phone conversations were exchanged where the buyer was informed that the iPhone was stolen)
3. Nothing can be taken away from what the San Francisco PD are actually doing (based upon what was actually posted on macrumors).

Quoted from the Huffington Post Article:

In 2011, New York police arrested 237 people over a five-day period for buying and selling stolen iPhones and iPads from undercover officers. The officers told buyers they had stolen the devices from an Apple store in Manhattan.

Robert Tester, 20, of Brooklyn, was among those arrested. Tester said the undercover officer was "relentless" and insisted that he buy the iPhone, even after Tester refused. The officer claimed he needed money to buy his daughter Christmas presents, according to a federal lawsuit Tester filed against the city in January.

Tester bought the iPhone for $20 because he was "feeling sorry" for the seller and his daughter, his suit claims. He said he did not know the phone was stolen. The charges were dropped, but Tester claims his arrest made him miss work and caused him psychological injury. He is seeking $150,000 in damages. His suit is pending.

If he was indeed told - it's entrapment....and even if he was told - the $25 price for an iPhone could still be grounds for entrapment.

iLilana · Apr 30, 2013

because buying a phone from a stranger on the street ..

...is a smart thing to do. Seriously if you stole my phone, I WOULD FIND YOU!!! mainly because I don't have a phone.

dreadful · May 6, 2013

entrapment

According to the way it's described in the story, yes, this is entrapment.

The standard is this:
Would the person have bought the illegal merchandise WITHOUT being prompted to do so by the undercover officer?

As an officer of the law, I can't go up to you, hand you a rock and dare you to break a window, and then arrest you for it. No, you should not have taken my offer. But would you have broken a window if I had not prompted you to do so?

New Report Details Inside Look at San Francisco Police Department Undercover Stolen iPhone Sting

Cancelled

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 68040

Cancelled

macrumors regular

Moderator

Suspended

macrumors 68000

Moderator

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68040

macrumors 601

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors newbie

Our Staff