Funny how just changing the wording to something like "Criminal Investigation of Stolen Item Spurred by Victim's Request" can make a difference, eh? Gizmodo bought what sounds a lot like a stolen item for a large amount of money, meaning the investigation is felony purchase of a stolen item under California law. From what I've read from Gizmodo, they've essentially nailed their own coffin shut on that on. They bought what they had to know was a prototype (they inspected it before handing over $5K - no matter how you try to spin it, I can't believe they had any doubt of its authenticity), flaunted the fact, failed to make any reasonable attempts to contact the owner (whose name they obviously had since they had no problem publishing it) or the authorities, proceeded to use the letter requesting the return of the property to its owner as proof of its authenticity, then posted photos of a tear-down of the product they performed before returning it, possibly violating misappropriation of trade secrets laws.
Now, everyone is griping about the shield laws that protect the identity of sources. This doesn't sound like an investigation into the source. It sounds like an investigation as to whether Gizmodo's employees committed a felony. Enough evidence was presented to a judge to justify the warrant. Apple being on a steering committee doesn't change the fact that the police are pursuing a criminal investigation. In fact, last I read, the police said that Apple hadn't even contacted them about a theft.
Now, everyone is griping about the shield laws that protect the identity of sources. This doesn't sound like an investigation into the source. It sounds like an investigation as to whether Gizmodo's employees committed a felony. Enough evidence was presented to a judge to justify the warrant. Apple being on a steering committee doesn't change the fact that the police are pursuing a criminal investigation. In fact, last I read, the police said that Apple hadn't even contacted them about a theft.
