Authorities Withdraw Search Warrant in Gizmodo iPhone 4 Case

[Mark Booth]

See the update on the front page. The WSJ is reporting that Chen and Gawker are cooperating with authorities and they will voluntarily turn over information deemed relevant by a court appointee.

All this does is create a situation where Chen gets his stuff back but the authorities still get the information from those computers that they need for their investigation.

Bottom line, this is nothing more than a convoluted way of dealing with Gawker's claim that Chen was protected by the shield law. The search warrant has been withdrawn, Chen and Gawker have agreed to the terms and agreed to cooperate. It's as if the search never took place but the authorities are left in an even better spot because Gawker is cooperating.

I still expect Chen and/or others to be charged with a crime.

Mark

 

[Shanpdx]

iPhone 4 case - they must mean the bumper!

i am laughing i wonder anyone else understood what you are saying lol

 

[capsfan1978]

After reading the WSJ article -

This is a win for Apple. The only reason the warrant is being withdrawn is because Gizmodo gave in and is now going to cooperate with the authorities.

Instead of having a battle in court over the legality of the warrant they'll move on to the actual investigation.

 

[Shanpdx]

We are all human

and we make mistakes - if that's what apple said today's press conference ...

Apple should show gizmodo some mercy and let it go! life is short.

definitely Gizmodo did was wrong and after all gizmodo also a big apple follower; how many of us turned for gizmodo's Apple coverage every event?. surely i did until that incident.

they had enough negative publicity already; leave them alone.

next time they will do the right thing.

 

[hotsnuglemonstr]

mouth breather HELLA has a lazy eye

 

[wreckshop]

It's as if the search never took place but the authorities are left in an even better spot because Gawker is cooperating.

I still expect Chen and/or others to be charged with a crime.

Mark

Says right there the search warrant was illegal. Therefore anything discovered on that illegal search is inadmissable as evidence. So damn right those guys are cooperating because they have nothing to worry about now.

And just because u get charged with something doesnt mean crap. guilty until proven innocent and NO jury will convict them.

 

[Yukon Jack]

plus one

I think the only thing that fails is most of the posts in this thread.

No kidding. What Jason looks like has no bearing on the whole story.

Just when I'd totally forgotten this story, MR has to resurrect it.

This story is so ancient (in the grand scheme of the 5-hour news cycle) that I'm surprised to see so many comments rehashing how Chen and Giz are epic fails, and all the other collateral opinions.

 

[JS82712]

I challenge anyone here calling him ugly to put up photos of themselves. I bet you're not so pretty yourself. If you wouldn't call him ugly to his face then why are you doing it behind his back?

I've done modeling work in the past, but I can definitely look pretty skanky too, especially if photographed in bad light while I'm stressed and worried about other things. That describes most days for me nowadays.

People find him ugly because he juxtaposed himself with an iPhone 4

 

[AidenShaw]

If I had a face like Jason Chen's I would've already killed myself by now.

Please post a picture of yourself, if appearance is your only measure of a person.

 

[robby818]

To the person who asked why not let it go. It's out of Apple's hands now. I don't think the Prosecutor is just going to let this go.

For Apple, this had the desired effect..I heard Johsua Topulsky on TWIT say that before all of this happened there may have been some debate over what to do if his company was in Gizmodo's position but after all of this went down he knows (from his general counsel) he can never do what Gizmodo did. This prosecution will have a strong deterrent effect and there is value to seeing this go to trial.

 

[charlituna]

The EFFs argument is BS. This is NOT a protecting a source case at all. Gizmodo didn't claim someone told them the details and gave them the photos. THAT would be a source case.

They admitted to buying the phone, making the video etc. On a public forum.

That said, it's possible that that admission plus the details from the seller could be enough that it won't matter about the falsely withdrawn warrant etc.

And regardless, I hope Gawker Media stays site not grata with Apple. Let them continue to have to repost other folks stuff. Deny them freebies etc. They deserve it.

 

[charlituna]

Right he stole the iphone because SJ says so.

No, because Chen and the seller say so.

Under Cali law, if you find something and don't make an effort to return it to the owner, it is stolen goods. And buying stolen goods is a crime. Doing it for $5000 is a felony level crime.

The guy found the phone and rather than doing the obvious of giving it the staff at the bar, he took it home. He claims he had access to the guy's facebook and thus knew who the owner was and even that the guy worked at apple (which he used when the marketed the phone to suggest that perhaps it was a prototype). He never used that facebook info to contact the guy. The intention seems pretty clear that he saw a free iphone and meant to keep it. His roommates have stated this was basically the sitch.

Then he further didn't deliver the phone to either of the nearby Apple stores or the campus. He allegedly called AppleCare and claimed to have a prototype, rather than the corporate office. Hardly a real attempt to return the phone. And he likely knew this.

Then he went to both Engadget, which apparently didn't believe him, and Gizmodo, who couldn't resist the possibility to sell the phone. Gizmodo, admitting they knew the phone didn't beyond to him and the level with which he tried to return the phone, bought it. They admitted on their site that they bought the phone, revealing the facebook account on the phone as proof that it was the real thing etc. When they agreed to return it, they required Apple to admit it was a prototype as they believed (having published materials they would know where trade secrets which is also breaking civil if not criminal laws).

And this was AFTER the Gizmodo editor was recorded on twitter saying they would do anything, including pay money, for real details about the new iphone. And after sister site Valleywag trying the same thing over the ipad.

Jobs didn't have to say anything.

Who are you to determine that calling the only phone number for Apple in the phone book is a "lame attempt"?

it was unlikely the ONLY number and it was a lame attempt. The obvious response is to leave it with the staff. If you are worried one of them might take it, get the guy/gal's name and use that facebook info you saw on the phone to send a message to the guy "hey you left your phone at X bar, I left with the bartender Y". Done. You don't take it out of the bar etc

iphone 4 has been selling like crazy (3 million handsets) despite the antenna issue.

why still go after the guy?

Because he broke the law. By brushing it off as no biggie, Apple is inviting Gawker Media and anyone else to do it again.

 

[charlituna]

See the update on the front page. The WSJ is reporting that Chen and Gawker are cooperating with authorities and they will voluntarily turn over information deemed relevant by a court appointee.

From what I recall, the way it was set up, only this third party court rep could look at Chen's stuff and decide what was and wasn't relevant. To protect his sources for other things. My guess is that the names of the folks leaking him info were in his computer and he didn't want them out'd to Apple. But once the info was found, Chen's lawyers had to approve it being given to the DA.

So the deal seems to be that the DA is releasing Chen's actual equipment back to him and they are not objecting to the handing over of the information found by the court rep. Likely so that they can get a lesser punishment for cooperating.

Apple should show gizmodo some mercy and let it go!

I would agree with you but for one very important detail. This isn't the first time parents Gawker have tried this. They did it with the tablet rumors as well. They offered cash for protection information and even access to a prototype. And were told that what they were doing and intending was against the law.
AND then they made the same offer again about the iphone. And this time pulled it off.

They knew it was wrong and didn't care. If left alone there's no reason to believe they had really learned their lesson and won't do it again. Spank them a little for real and maybe it will sink in. And show other sites what will happen if they try it.

 

[mbh]

Yes, LAME.

... He makes a lame attempt to return the prototype( by calling customer service who have no means at all to do anything about it) and then goes shopping around to sell the prototype to the media. ...

Who are you to determine that calling the only phone number for Apple in the phone book is a "lame attempt"?

There's no evidence in the police affidavit that Hogan made any attempt to return the phone to the owner (Powell) or Apple, even though he knew the name and employer of the owner from his facebook page accessed on the phone itself. (This is how Gizmodo knew who the owner was, since the phone was bricked before they got it.)

When Hogan's roommate, Martinson, tried to talk Hogan out of selling the phone because Powell might lose his job, Hogan reportedly said, "Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn't have lost his phone."

Martinson had no trouble contacting Apple security after Hogan connected the phone to her computer and she feared that it might get her in trouble.

When Hogan learned that the police were investigating the loss of the phone, he fled, scattering evidence all over town. Hogan started cooperating with the police when he was informed that is actions demonstrated of consciousness of guilt.

Yeah, I think we can safely categorize Hogan's "attempt" to contact Apple as "lame".

Are you contending that Hogan made an honest effort to return the phone to its rightful owner? What actions did he take and what is your source for this information? Why didn't he send e-mail to Powell? Why didn't he contact the restaurant where he found the phone to see if the owner was looking for it? How was his roommate able to contact Apple security so easily?

Some light reading: https://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/14/details-of-lost-next-generation-iphone-saga-revealed-in-search-warrant-affidavit/ Perhaps the authorities have relented and returned Gizmodo's stuff for now, but that doesn't change the evidence in the witness interviews or the report of the investigation.

 

[Eriden]

LOL all u apple homers on SJ's nutsack. Says right there the search warrant was illegal. Therefore anything discovered on that illegal search is inadmissable as evidence. So damn right those guys are cooperating because they have nothing to worry about now.

Actually, no judge has ruled on the search, so the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is inapplicable. Despite the fact that Chen is getting his **** back, he will be hit with interrogatories first followed by subpoenas to produce much of the same stuff that he'll be getting back. This is actually a rather smart move on the part of prosecutors, as it minimizes the chances of a judge ruling any of the evidence inadmissible due to the shield law.

Shame actually, as I was hoping to see blogger protection under press protection theories litigated and appealed. While Giz was certainly sleazy with how they approached that story, I hope the courts extend press protections to certain portions of the "blogging" community. Certainly not every Tom, Dick & Harry with a blog, but the truth is that high-level blogs like Engadget are a glimpse at the future of journalism. Just look at the level of success experienced by mainstream outlets that have hidden themselves behind paywalls... Traditional journalism will be dead within 10 years unless the media moguls find a better way to adapt. And as the world of journalism shifts more in favor of the blogger, extending first amendment and statutory journalist protections to some bloggers can only be a good thing.

 

[TheAppleGeek]

That ****er is guilty, hang him from the highest tree!!! I got the rope right here!!!

That's a bit far, don't ya think?

 

[tomccabe]

Sounds like you are envious....




Who are you to determine that calling the only phone number for Apple in the phone book is a "lame attempt"?

Pretty amazing that the guys roommate was able to contact Apple security with little problem.

 

[kallisti]

and we make mistakes - if that's what apple said today's press conference ...

Apple should show gizmodo some mercy and let it go! life is short.

definitely Gizmodo did was wrong and after all gizmodo also a big apple follower; how many of us turned for gizmodo's Apple coverage every event?. surely i did until that incident.

they had enough negative publicity already; leave them alone.

next time they will do the right thing.

What can Apple let go? This isn't a lawsuit. It's a criminal investigation. Apple isn't running this show, the district attorney is.

 

[kernkraft]

That ****er is guilty, hang him from the highest tree!!! I got the rope right here!!!

Your Honour,

your accusation might be ill-founded and your style is breaching Macrumors' rules. Following your tough penal policy might result in Macrumors cutting off your hand.

Your Honour, I hope that it will be the hand that you mostly use for typing.

 

[tmuller]

How ever you feel about this, at the end of the day, they still broke the law. It's time people start accepting responsibility for their actions instead of getting "freebees" or "passes" from prosecutors.

 

[Consultant]

So, Gizmodo is still under investigation.

Now it's called something else. (After police got their evidence anyway).

 

[azurehi]

If I had a face like Jason Chen's I would've already killed myself by now. Is a picture of this ugly bastard really necessary on the front page? Is MacRumors trying to get us to throw up our lunches? This is truly an outrage.

Perhaps, with maturity, you will see beauty where now you see only ugliness...Perhaps Not..

 

[albusseverus]

The order doesn't say why the order was withdrawn. EFF reasserted that it was illegal, but no legal authority made that claim. It could be that the cops realized they screwed up and they're trying to save themselves. It could also be that the DA realized that cancelling the warrant could still get the conviction with a much less chance of an appeal, save some money.

Closer to the truth, I think. The search was illegal under California law. Everybody knew it and the EFF prosecuted that from the get-go. The second judge wouldn't touch it with a barge pole and pushed it back to the original judge to clean up his own mess. I'm disgusted at this, but at least he didn't further contribute to this miscarriage of justice (other than not speaking out about it).

The judge knew it was illegal when he authorised the search, but it's a tactic to pressure a journalist to reveal sources and bypass the First Amendment. Oops, we're sorry our bad... now we have your balls in a vice.

Whereas if the courts and the police had acted legally, they could have subpoenaed Chen to supply the information and he could have said no, perhaps served time for contempt, but they had no leverage and frankly, no evidence.

When the police and courts go outside the law, you have to think that they have no case and need to employ 'tactics' to force 'a deal' to make themselves look good in the media. You've seen it yourself on 60 Minutes, the legal system can force people to admit to murders they didn't commit, so you can imagine what they'll get away with in this case.

Now Chen and Gawker have to make a 'deal', just to preserve their First Amendment rights. A travesty, but if you're Apple, there's ways around the law, you just have to bend it a little.

Photos of that phone were on the internet weeks before Gizmodo published. If a phone was missing, you'd think Apple would have people scouring the internet to find it. Apple's story doesn't add up. Apple waited until after they got enough free publicity for iPhone 4 (remember iPhone sales dropped for the first time this year, thanks to Android) before moving on Chen.

Frankly, my contract's up and I'm due for a new phone, but Apple's/Jobs' childish vindictiveness has convinced me that I don't want to do business with them this year. Buddhist my-arse!

 

[ZazenZach]

the ignorance and hatred in this thread is disgusting. what gives you the right to start talking about jason chen (or whatever his name is) and calling him fugly or saying you would kill yourself if you looked like him. that is an absolutely vile thing to say.

ans most importantly, the mass comments of people saying you hope he goes to prison and get raped etc. WTF?! go to prison for buying a prototype phone? I'm not saying what gizmodo did was right....but to say he deserves prison time (a place where murderes a child rapists are) and to have his life ruined is absolutely disgusting.

you guys really are disappointingly ignorant and immature. i hope for our planet's sake, most of you are still in school.

 

[quagmire]

Closer to the truth, I think. The search was illegal under California law. Everybody knew it and the EFF prosecuted that from the get-go. The second judge wouldn't touch it with a barge pole and pushed it back to the original judge to clean up his own mess. I'm disgusted at this, but at least he didn't further contribute to this miscarriage of justice (other than not speaking out about it).

The judge knew it was illegal when he authorised the search, but it's a tactic to pressure a journalist to reveal sources and bypass the First Amendment. Oops, we're sorry our bad... now we have your balls in a vice.

Whereas if the courts and the police had acted legally, they could have subpoenaed Chen to supply the information and he could have said no, perhaps served time for contempt, but they had no leverage and frankly, no evidence.

When the police and courts go outside the law, you have to think that they have no case and need to employ 'tactics' to force 'a deal' to make themselves look good in the media. You've seen it yourself on 60 Minutes, the legal system can force people to admit to murders they didn't commit, so you can imagine what they'll get away with in this case.

The police were not after the seller, just gizmodo/Chen. Therefore the shield law does not apply as the shield law only protects the sources.

Now Chen and Gawker have to make a 'deal', just to preserve their First Amendment rights. A travesty, but if you're Apple, there's ways around the law, you just have to bend it a little.

Photos of that phone were on the internet weeks before Gizmodo published. If a phone was missing, you'd think Apple would have people scouring the internet to find it. Apple's story doesn't add up. Apple waited until after they got enough free publicity for iPhone 4 (remember iPhone sales dropped for the first time this year, thanks to Android) before moving on Chen.

Frankly, my contract's up and I'm due for a new phone, but Apple's/Jobs' childish vindictiveness has convinced me that I don't want to do business with them this year. Buddhist my-arse!

The first amendment does not protect you from committing a crime. Buying stolen property is a crime.

Apple did contact gizmodo to get the prototype back. But, the only way gizmodo would give it back was if Apple sent in written form( so it could be published online) that it was their property.

Gizmodo admitted to their own crime in the articles. They hung themselves by telling exactly how they got the prototype and the steps the seller did to return the phone( or lack there of).

Even if these were not criminal matters, by tearing the prototype apart and posting it online committed a civil case of revealing trade secrets.