Authorities Withdraw Search Warrant in Gizmodo iPhone 4 Case

[charlituna]

Actually, no judge has ruled on the search, so the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is inapplicable.

Exactly. At this point, the search is totally valid. No one has ruled otherwise. Withdrawing the warrant could just be part of the process in returning Chen's physical materials.

I can see why Chen was so antsy. His computer probably also had emails etc from someone(s) at Apple that was feeding him info against NDA etc. That person would lose his/her job. So Chen was trying to protect a source, just not the one for the iphone 4 prototype. The move of having a 3rd party be the one to look inside the computer was a good one. Because then there's no way anyone would have something that Apple would have to be given if there was a civil suit. And nothing that might come out in the criminal one.

It's possible that they withdrew the warrant because they have Hogan's stuff. He could have kept all the emails he sent and received and they feel that the headers etc, along with captures of the various articles is enough proof so the copies on Chen's computer don't really matter.

as it minimizes the chances of a judge ruling any of the evidence inadmissible due to the shield law.

Only an idiot would apply shield law to this case because it's not about a source at all. Chen openly admitted in a public forum that he bought the phone etc.

All this could do in regards to shield laws is cut off Gawker from trying to make the appeal and wasting anyone's time with it.

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.

Sure, why not. Actually let any blogger posting 'news' have that protection.

Trouble is that this is NOT that kind of case. this is a criminal act case.

Now had Chen bought the phone and kept his mouth shut about it, it could have been different. If he had taken the photos, made the videos etc and then posted them saying "A well placed source has provided me with this information, enjoy!" then he could have argued shield law to protect that he was his own source etc.

He screwed up, letting his ego get the better of him, admitting that he had the phone and bought it and the way he got it. Maybe it would have been a slap on the wrist in the end had Gawker not attempted this kind of stunt a few weeks before over the tablet rumors and had they not gone on places like Twitter declaring they would happily do it again for the phone.

 

[Swift]

AND CHEN ALONE ...

What gizmodo did not cool, what Apple did also not cool

You mean, it's not cool to get your prototype stolen?

You can be as yellow-blog click-counting crap as you want. You can't steal. End of story.

 

[Swift]

Right he stole the iphone because SJ says so.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. I guess quoting California law, looking at the details of the initial investigation, and realizing that there was ample evidence that evidence might be destroyed that a search warrant was granted, all of this means nothing in the application of mindless Jobs hate.

This basically means nothing. The Special Master will now comb through all the items on the computer, come up with the relevant items and forget the porn and torrent files and love e-mails, and Chen has voluntarily consented to it being used as evidence. 6 for 1, half-dozen for another.

 

[LagunaSol]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on. I guess quoting California law, looking at the details of the initial investigation, and realizing that there was ample evidence that evidence might be destroyed that a search warrant was granted, all of this means nothing in the application of mindless Jobs hate.

Indeed. That this argument persists shows how intent some people are at bringing Apple down. You'd have to be devoid of brain cells (or blinded by Apple hate/ulterior motives) to argue that 1) the finder of the phone practiced due diligence (a legal requirement) in trying to return the phone, and/or 2) Jason Chen/Gizmodo/et al did no wrong by knowingly purchasing a stolen device and outing Apple's trade secrets to the world.

Read the affidavit, people, if you need help with the facts.

 

[DylanLikesPorn]

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

Where is the beauty? Please kindly point them out. Jason Chen is ugly on the outside and inside, as witnessed by his actions. He has no redeeming qualities. He is a douchebag of the highest order.

 

[applebook]

Considering that his roommate, who knew next to nothing about the company, got all the way to the head of security, the answer to your question is "a rational thinking person."

Be careful because you aren't replying to such a person.

 

[wreckshop]

Indeed. That this argument persists shows how intent some people are at bringing Apple down. You'd have to be devoid of brain cells (or blinded by Apple hate/ulterior motives) to argue that 1) the finder of the phone practiced due diligence (a legal requirement) in trying to return the phone, and/or 2) Jason Chen/Gizmodo/et al did no wrong by knowingly purchasing a stolen device and outing Apple's trade secrets to the world.

Read the affidavit, people, if you need help with the facts.

Theft is when one person intends to permanently deprive another of their property.

He never meant to keep it, so there was no intent to deprive. He did in fact return the phone of his own free will to its owner.

No jury will convict him, bank on that.

 

[quagmire]

Theft is when one person intends to permanently deprive another of their property.

He never meant to keep it, so there was no intent to deprive. He did in fact return the phone of his own free will to its owner.

No jury will convict him, bank on that.

Then why did the seller sell it to gizmodo if he intended to return it? He had the info of the engineer. Then why did it take a letter from apple to request it back to gizmodo when gizmodo knew it was apples?

When the seller failed to reasonably make every effort to return the prototype and sold it to gizmodo, it became stolen property. When gizmodo bought it, it was buying stolen property. I advise you to become more familiar with the law.

 

[LagunaSol]

Theft is when one person intends to permanently deprive another of their property.

You obviously know nothing about the law.

If I take your car for a cross-country joyride and return it to you two weeks later, guess what that is? Theft.

No jury will convict him, bank on that.

Only if the jurors know as little about the law as you do.

 

[wreckshop]

Then why did the seller sell it to gizmodo if he intended to return it? He had the info of the engineer. Then why did it take a letter from apple to request it back to gizmodo when gizmodo knew it was apples?

When the seller failed to reasonably make every effort to return the prototype and sold it to gizmodo, it became stolen property. When gizmodo bought it, it was buying stolen property. I advise you to become more familiar with the law.

Lets say I saw someone steal a phone from someones backpack. I go up to the thief and convince him to sell me the stolen phone. I find out who the owner is, then I return it to him. Do u really think a jury will convict me for theft? Of course not, it wouldnt even go to trial lol

 

[LagunaSol]

Lets say I saw someone steal a phone from someones backpack. I go up to the thief and convince him to sell me the stolen phone. I find out who the owner is, then I return it to him.

Wow, it's getting thick in here...

 

[wreckshop]

You obviously know nothing about the law.

If I take your car for a cross-country joyride and return it to you two weeks later, guess what that is? Theft.

Of course it's theft, because a joyride doesnt last 2 weeks. There are specific laws that are very clear about what is a joyride and what is grand theft auto.

I fail to see how this applies to a phone? People "borrow" stuff all the time.

Only if the jurors know as little about the law as you do.

Since u know so much about the law, lets make a bet. I will bet u that a jury will never convict him of theft. If I win u will never post on this forum again. If a jury does convict him, then I will never post here again.

cmon mister smarty pants who knows so much.... take me up on my bet

 

[wreckshop]

Wow, it's getting thick in here...

Sure is... take me up on my bet if ur so smart and know so much about the law LOL

 

[RawBert]

That ugly ass bastard. He's a goblin. Maybe he should've used those 5000 bucks to buy a new face instead of a stolen iPhone.

MR, please no more pics of this animal.

 

[applebook]

That ugly ass bastard. He's a goblin. Maybe he should've used those 5000 bucks to buy a new face instead of a stolen iPhone.

MR, please no more pics of this animal.

LAWL! I don't like the guy either, but that's a bit harsh, huh?

 

[quagmire]

Lets say I saw someone steal a phone from someones backpack. I go up to the thief and convince him to sell me the stolen phone. I find out who the owner is, then I return it to him. Do u really think a jury will convict me for theft? Of course not, it wouldnt even go to trial lol

That is great and all, but gizmodo did not have the intention of returning it. It took Apple calling them to get it back. Gizmodo didn't do crap on their end to contact Apple. All they did was take pictures, tell how they bought stolen property, and tore it apart. Hell, it took a letter from Apple for gizmodo to return it( just so they could post it on the web to show the readers it is a prototype). A phone call wasn't enough despite them knowing it was Apple's.

There is a difference between buying stolen property with the intention of returning it to the owner and just buying stolen property( which gizmodo did).

 

[Phokus]

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.

Well, we're talking about typical apple fanboy behavior so it's not exactly surprising.

 

[tbrinkma]

Right he stole the iphone because SJ says so.

Nope. A simple reading of the applicable California state laws, combined with the facts as portrayed by the original article that he wrote for Gizmodo, demonstrates that it was a case of Gizmodo knowingly purchasing stolen goods.

 

[litmag01]

He never stole a thing. The correct term is "liberated."

 

[justinfreid]

So the police forcibly enter a reporter's home and seize his property, are later ordered to return it because the warrant is declared invalid, and the reporter agrees to voluntarily turn said property back to the police?

 

[charlituna]

So the police forcibly enter a reporter's home and seize his property, are later ordered to return it because the warrant is declared invalid,

At no point has anything been said about the warrant being invalidated. THe DA was the one that removed it. Why? Who knows. The popular theory is that everyone found by the court appointee exists elsewhere (emails from the other end for example) and thus Chen's copies aren't really needed. And by voluntarily removing the warrant they can remove any chance he might try to appeal via the whole erroneous shield law stuff and drag things out (erroneous because the shield laws don't protect someone who has committed a crime, particularly a felony one that he publicly confessed to)

 

[albusseverus]

At no point has anything been said about the warrant being invalidated.

Neither was it "said" it was valid. Under Californian law, it wasn't valid and that's what the EFF prosecuted. Just because it isn't "said", doesn't mean that's the case.

See my comments above about forcing Chen into making a deal by means of an illegal warrant.

 

[Mal]

Neither was it "said" it was valid. Under Californian law, it wasn't valid and that's what the EFF prosecuted. Just because it isn't "said", doesn't mean that's the case.

See my comments above about forcing Chen into making a deal by means of an illegal warrant.

Until proven otherwise, in the eyes of the law it was a valid warrant. You can't just go decide that it wasn't valid and expect anyone else to treat that as fact. It was validly issued, and was treated as a valid warrant by the police department, the judge that issued it, and the DA who asked for it.

Now that it's withdrawn, we'll never get a ruling about it from another judge, as the EFF clearly desired, but claiming it was invalid is not going to hold up in a debate since that was never substantiated.

jW

 

[albusseverus]

Until proven otherwise, in the eyes of the law it was a valid warrant. You can't just go decide that it wasn't valid and expect anyone else to treat that as fact. It was validly issued, and was treated as a valid warrant by the police department, the judge that issued it, and the DA who asked for it.

Now that it's withdrawn, we'll never get a ruling about it from another judge, as the EFF clearly desired, but claiming it was invalid is not going to hold up in a debate since that was never substantiated.

jW

We're not a court, so "in the eyes of the law" b.s. doesn't apply here (thankfully).

Warrant issued, challenged, another judge refused to rule, warrant withdrawn. Only a lawyer could contend that there was no conclusion to be drawn here. The warrant was not legal. The rest is ar$e covering by a corrupt legal system.

 

[charlituna]

Neither was it "said" it was valid.

Actually the fact that they got the warrant is a statement by the judge that the warrant is valid. Or at least he believed so

Under Californian law,

and exactly which law is that

that's what the EFF prosecuted.

they ever 'prosecuted' anything. They tried to argue Shield Law but that is about protecting a source which was not applicable in this case because no one had to ask him for his source when he himself had possession of the prototype and he himself took the photos etc (by his own admission)

The warrant etc was about the criminal act of buying stolen property (stolen as defined by California's failure to return laws), which Chen also confessed to via his bragging in the articles.