Law Enforcement Reportedly Looking Into Circumstances of Lost Next-Generation iPhone

[oldwatery]

I know. It's ridiculous. People complain about Apple's secrecy and spend their time on a rumors site for Apple, and then as soon as there's a leak, they complain that it's unfair to Apple

It's one thing to speculate on stuff and enjoy the chase it's completely another to break the law.
This was not a leak...it was a criminal act.
What is it you don't understand about this

 

[Small White Car]

I can't believe that the idiot who found the phone didn't realize that his legal fees are probably going to cost him more than $5,000.

Even if he doesn't get in trouble in the end you just know this will end up costing more than that by the end.

 

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

I wonder if Gizmodo still happy about their "exclusivity" to introduce new device ...

You mean all the publicity they've been getting? Hell yes.

Apple, learn a new phrase: "mea culpa." And then move on.

 

[mski349]

It's one thing to speculate on stuff and enjoy the chase...QUOTE]

Is this kinda like the dog who always chases after cars? Then has no idea what to do when he catches one? Lol

 

[Lesser Evets]

Win-win for Apple.

Millions of dollars advertising for the next product, nothing new to reveal to enemy developers, and they get some cash by screwing the poor slob that used the phone to his paltry advantage. Heap the big cherry on top of "Don't screw with Apple or you're f'd!"

Sheesh.

 

[Small White Car]

Please explain to me how someone losing an item, another finding it equates to theft.

When you find something that isn't yours and, instead of trying to return it, you sell it, then it becomes theft. There have been many, many posts about this all over the internet by people who actually know the laws in California.

 

[jaw04005]

Please explain to me how someone losing an item, another finding it equates to theft.

Did you even read the article?

From CNET:

"Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

Any prosecution would be complicated because of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that confidential information leaked to a news organization could be legally broadcast, although that case did not deal with physical property and the radio station did not pay its source.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003308-37.html

 

[CaryMacGuy]

I believe that the person that found the phone went to great lengths to contact Apple and return the device. Apple was unreceptive to the attempts (on more than one occasion). I believe that he did his due diligence to return the device to Apple. Apple seemed to make it clear that they didn't want it. Since Apple wasn't willing to take it back, he assumed ownership of the property and sold it. I am not a legal professional, but in my opinion, there was nothing criminal done.

 

[Reaktor5]

Good luck to Gizmodo to getting into WWDC... or any other Apple event for that matter.
Getting an exclusive story is one thing, paying for stolen goods and completely desecrating that guy is another.

 

[Christian247]

Please explain to me how someone losing an item, another finding it equates to theft.

That part doesn't (insert derogatory comment), the part that was illegal, is the transaction of the $5K to the guy who found it!!!! GOD DA*$ it!!!

Really how hard is this to understand?! the fact that it was found is not illegal, but once u take said property and resell it knowingly constitutes an exchange of stolen goods. But I woudl still argue that Gizidmo bought the property to give back to Apple, since they have such a vested interest in their company.

 

[Small White Car]

I believe that the person that found the phone went to great lengths to contact Apple and return the device. Apple was unreceptive to the attempts (on more than one occasion). I believe that he did his due diligence to return the device to Apple.

He knew the name of the owner.
He did not contact him.

He knew the bar it was found in.
He did not tell the bar or ask the bar if anyone was missing it.

You're out of your mind. Those are the FIRST two things he should have tried.

 

[mski349]

I believe that the person that found the phone went to great lengths to contact Apple and return the device. Apple was unreceptive to the attempts (on more than one occasion). I believe that he did his due diligence to return the device to Apple. Apple seemed to make it clear that they didn't want it. Since Apple wasn't willing to take it back, he assumed ownership of the property and sold it. I am not a legal professional, but in my opinion, there was nothing criminal done.

Couldn't have said it better myself... considering my "DENSITY"

 

[Dwalls90]

Of course Apple has a case here ... if one maintains or finds property that they knowingly don't own, it's illegal ...

 

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

No one will be arrested for this "crime", and Apple won't sue either...what damages has Apple suffered as a result of this? what damages would they be seeking to recover? That is the basis of a Civil law suit, recovering damages...The only thing that could possibly happen is Apple will blackball Gizmodo from it's events...Surely the seller and Gizmodo could be charged with larceny, and recieving stolen goods respectively, but no one will be convicted of anything...why? BECAUSE APPLE LOST THE PHONE and attempts were made to return it before it was sold

 

[.Andy]

Surely law enforcement has better things to do than look into a lost phone.

 

[Reaktor5]

I'm sure if the guy that "found" the iPhone had turned it directly over to Apple, he would have gotten something more than just a thanks out of it too.

 

[BertyBoy]

Oh no, not another thread full of rants from the uninformed and uneducated.

Before making any comment, please:
Understand the difference between a criminal case and a civil case.
Understand who does the prosecuting in each.
Understand the level of proof required in each to secure a conviction / win.
Understand that if Apple was to sue anyone it would require Apple to show they have suffered a financial loss as a direct result of the defendants actions.

I can hear the iPhone finder saying in court - not that it would ever get that far - "Yeah, the Apple guy sold it to me for $800 cash. He said I'd get a $5000 reward from Apple if I returned it. I tried to phone Apple the next day to return it. but they didn't want to know, so I sold it to the tech website to get my money back".
Then you need to understand that as a defendant he doesn't need to prove any of that.

 

[jav6454]

Well, Gizmodo has no right to return something they bought; however, if they knew the thing wasn't the seller's property, then that's a different story.

 

[dwsolberg]

I'm glad they're pursing charges. The guy obviously knew that he had something valuable, he knew it would be missed, and he knew it was Apple's property. All he had to do was return it to the employees at the place where it was lost. Instead, he decided to profit from someone else's property.

That's wrong, and I hope it's illegal.

 

[trrosen]

Right now we only have a second hand account of the "finders" story of what happened that night. Which if true is still theft by CA law. The fact is we don't know that the engineer left the phone in the bar. The "finder could have swiped the phone while the engineer wasn't looking or could have pick pocketed the engineer in the bar. Maybe the answer to "why didn't the "finder" take the phone to the police?" as required by CA law is that his rap sheet may have made law enforcement doubt his story.

Question if your phone was pick pocketed would you know it or would wonder where you left it or if you lost it?

 

[UnseenLlama]

I believe that the person that found the phone went to great lengths to contact Apple and return the device. Apple was unreceptive to the attempts (on more than one occasion). I believe that he did his due diligence to return the device to Apple. Apple seemed to make it clear that they didn't want it. Since Apple wasn't willing to take it back, he assumed ownership of the property and sold it. I am not a legal professional, but in my opinion, there was nothing criminal done.

Couldn't have said it better myself... considering my "DENSITY"

If I picked up your wallet with a photo id and your address and didn't attempt to contact you, would you consider me a thief?

 

[allpar]

Has it occured to anyone but me that the phone might have been stolen by a pickpocket who CLAIMED it had been left on the bar?

 

[.Andy]

If I picked up your wallet with a photo id and your address and didn't attempt to contact you, would you consider me a thief?

No. I'd consider myself a moron for losing it and you an prick for not at least returning my cards. You could even take all the cash.

 

[CaryMacGuy]

Apple has NOT been damaged by this...if anything even more hype has been generated surrounding the 4th Gen iPhone.

 

[Craiger77]

Please explain to me how someone losing an item, another finding it equates to theft.

The original finder knew the identity of the phones owner from his Facebook page. When he was unable to return it to the owner (One point that often gets left out is that he tried to return it to Apple, but nothing on the phone said Apple was the owner, he only assumed they were) he should legally have then turned it over to the police, not sold it for $5000.

California’s penal code, section 485:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

California’s civil code, section 2080.1:

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.