Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 29, 2013, 12:10 PM   #51
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukebound85 View Post
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.
Peace is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 12:26 PM   #52
ptb42
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrin View Post
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.
ptb42 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 01:08 PM   #53
alexander25
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
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.
alexander25 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 01:44 PM   #54
iSee
macrumors 68040
 
iSee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
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?)
__________________
"Nobody ever reads these things so I can write anything. I'd eat bananas every day if they were crunchy."
iSee is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 01:51 PM   #55
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptb42 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSee View Post
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.

Last edited by Peace; Apr 29, 2013 at 01:57 PM.
Peace is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 02:06 PM   #56
jcb10
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squilly View Post
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."

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander25 View Post
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.
jcb10 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 02:16 PM   #57
Weaselboy
macrumors P6
 
Weaselboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSee View Post
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.
Weaselboy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 02:16 PM   #58
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingelsefl View Post
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.

Last edited by gnasher729; Apr 29, 2013 at 02:25 PM.
gnasher729 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 02:18 PM   #59
SockRolid
macrumors 65816
 
SockRolid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Almost Rock Solid
"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.")
__________________
Sent from my iPad Simulator
SockRolid is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 02:20 PM   #60
Weaselboy
macrumors P6
 
Weaselboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
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.
Weaselboy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 02:35 PM   #61
topper24hours
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by spb3 View Post
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?
topper24hours is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 02:48 PM   #62
MrXiro
macrumors 68030
 
MrXiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryth View Post
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".
__________________
Whole lotta , very little $.
MrXiro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 03:00 PM   #63
ptb42
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
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.
ptb42 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 03:18 PM   #64
MrXiro
macrumors 68030
 
MrXiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptb42 View Post
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.
__________________
Whole lotta , very little $.
MrXiro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 03:29 PM   #65
MrXiro
macrumors 68030
 
MrXiro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by QCassidy352 View Post
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."
__________________
Whole lotta , very little $.
MrXiro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 06:44 PM   #66
OrangeSVTguy
macrumors 601
 
OrangeSVTguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Northeastern Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quu View Post
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

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdiaz View Post
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.
__________________
Browsing the forums from my Powerbook G4
OrangeSVTguy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2013, 09:51 PM   #67
Sora
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
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.
__________________
MacBook Pro | Matte 17" | 3.06 C2D | 256GB SSD | 4GB RAM | Mountain Lion
Mac mini | 2.26GHz C2D | 160GB HDD | 4GB RAM

Last edited by Sora; Apr 30, 2013 at 03:24 AM.
Sora is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2013, 07:41 PM   #68
iLilana
macrumors 6502a
 
iLilana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
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.
__________________
maxed bto 2013 27 inch iMac, iPad2 16gb, dual i7 11 inch late 2012 Macbook Air. iPad mini 32GB with LTE, iPad4 32gb.
iLilana is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2013, 11:10 PM   #69
dreadful
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
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?
dreadful is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPhone stolen and recovered by police Bolebent iPhone 19 Dec 17, 2013 08:00 AM
iPhone 5S/5C Launch Day San Francisco Bay Area dandrewk iPhone Launch Meetups 29 Sep 20, 2013 05:59 PM
AT&T iPhone 5 64GB Availibity In San Francisco MK25toLife iPhone 0 Nov 8, 2012 06:12 PM
Buying iPhone 5 in San Francisco traycraycray iPhone 0 Oct 24, 2012 03:59 PM
San Francisco iPhone Users stockcerts iPhone 1 Aug 10, 2012 02:27 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC