Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone

[ddrueckhammer]

The short answer is: the Privacy Protection Act requires a subpoena because it allows the target of the search to assert their first amendment right, which matters in America.

You can make your assumptions about the existence of stolen property and who knew what when as part of a conversation among friends, but those assumptions don't mean anything in court. Your reasoning mixes all sorts of different issues (trade secret law, theft offense, intent) that would result in lots of folks going to jail, if the law was so imprecise; it's not.

You may be right about this. I am not an attorney but I could see two possible arguments that a warrant is valid rather than a subpoena in this case.

1. "The Privacy Protection Act goes even further. In most cases, it requires police to use subpoenas, rather than search warrants, to search the premises of journalists who are not themselves suspects in the offense that is the subject of the search."

http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/publications/media.0101.pdf

In this case, Chen may be the subject of the search to find corroborating evidence of purchasing stolen property or breaking trade secret laws.

2. Chen works for a Blog (website), and Blogs may not be part of the protected class (journalists) that Privacy Protection Act protects because Bloggers are not an explicitly named member of the class.

 

[JohnDoe98]

No, you're just to lazy to search so you don't learn the truth.

Well here you go:

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.

Sounds like Gizmodo was trying to comply and save the prototype. They really took that last clause of describing the product to heart though.

 

[Revelation78]

Isn't "was" the operative word? I thought he gave it back.

Are they looking on his hard drive for the phone? Unless they are looking to see if they hired a guy to steal the phone, hasn't gizmodo pretty much admitted how they got the property??

Gary

Yes and no. The police will check everything out to find out what Jason/Giz exactly knew of the device and the circumstances surrounding it's acquisition. At which time the DA will determine if prosecution is warranted.

 

[JohnDoe98]

If someone is acting as your agent, then the same rules would apply as would apply to you. But your friend deciding on his own to pay the money without your ok would not likely be your agent.

On the other hand, public policy might mean this law should be strictly applied, as written. It's a good idea to discourage people from paying the "ransom" to get their stuff back, and instead go to the police. I'm sure some of my colleagues no the topography of this law - although I practice in California, I am almost always dealing with Federal, not state, law.

Intriguing, though its hard not to pay ransom when the situations are so volatile.

 

[quackquack]

I've already said it: When ~~they announced~~ that they believed it was a prototype, they had a duty to contact the owner or the police. It was THEIR DETERMINATION that sets the time limit because that's the very last possible moment when they could possibly have argued against mens rea.

And as others have said (and I've already said), I'll take it back further to the point of purchase. There's no way in which this is any different than someone buying a "lost item" from a fence. In fact it's even more damning, because the fact that they paid so much for it indicates that they: (1) hoped they knew the true owner, (2) hoped they would be able to keep the item until they had used it for their own benefit.

What I was getting at earlier was whether you think that being a prototype means it's necessarily owned by Apple. I don't think you can make this claim. I think they knew it was owned by Apple when Apple claimed it.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

The smugness and douchebaggery of gizmodo meets the overzealous nasty side of Apple.

Man, this is going to be a fun story.

 

[Revelation78]

lol... what's with all the hositility? I don't see why you are so testy.

Anyways, that's very interesting, but I think it's hard to argue that Gizmodo made the leap from reasonable to unreasonable in terms of "reasonable time", as to qualify as theft. After all, they returned the phone as soon as it was asked for.

Because this has been described to you in detail multiple times yet you want to continue to live in your fantasy world where if you didn't know something to be illegal then you're not guilty of committing a crime.

You can try to pick out what ever you want and say "see Giz didn't do anything wrong." Giz knew the time frame, they knew the person never turned the device over to authorities yet the purchased it, thus theft occurred.

 

[quackquack]

What's funny is that I don't even read Gizmodo. I just think that this story isn't as black-and-white as it is portrayed by the angry posters here.

 

[Revelation78]

Sounds like Gizmodo was trying to comply and save the prototype. They really took that last clause of describing the product to heart though.

If Giz had found it, they would have some latitude. Your theory goes out the window when they purchased the phone, thus it becomes theft. Due to what they paid, let alone the value of a prototype, it becomes a felony.

 

[quackquack]

Because this has been described to you in detail multiple times yet you want to continue to live in your fantasy world where if you didn't know something to be illegal then you're not guilty of committing a crime.

You can try to pick out what ever you want and say "see Giz didn't do anything wrong." Giz knew the time frame, they knew the person never turned the device over to authorities yet the purchased it, thus theft occurred.

Purchased it and immediately handed it over when it was asked for. It's going to be hard to convince a jury that constitutes as theft. Anyways, I don't want to raise your blood pressure anymore, so I'll leave you be

I love the internet.

 

[JohnDoe98]

If Giz had found it, they would have some latitude. Your theory goes out the window when they purchased the phone, thus it becomes theft. Do to what they paid, let alone the value of a prototype, it becomes a felony.

I know; I was aiming for facetiousness.

 

[garylapointe]

I bet gizmodo is feeling sick

They'll get the computers back eventually.

I bet they're LOVING the web traffic.

I'm just hoping for the short term they were using some off site backup for their data...

Gary

 

[RyanJL]

Not sure how well the daytime warrant argument is going to fly.

Chen said he saw the officers in his house at 9:45 pm, and that they said they'd been there a few hours.

Well, according to the rule, night time doesn't start until 10 pm.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm

 

[ddrueckhammer]

What I was getting at earlier was whether you think that being a prototype means it's necessarily owned by Apple. I don't think you can make this claim. I think they knew it was owned by Apple when Apple claimed it.

As I said before, I think the police may have to prove that Gizmodo (Chen) knew that the device was stolen in order to make a trade secret case.

I think you are probably right that stating an item is a prototype isn't an admission that you knew it was stolen but it could be considered reasonable suspicion for a search.

The task force that is conducting this investigation was created for investigating intellectual property breaches (corporate espionage) in Silicon Valley, they probably know what they are doing.

 

[Revelation78]

What's funny is that I don't even read Gizmodo. I just think that this story isn't as black-and-white as it is portrayed by the angry posters here.

No one is getting angry, we're just tired of kids coming on thinking that it's ok to take other people's property and turn around and sell it for a quick buck. Also if you had taken half the time to post all of your replies and did five minutes of your own research you would learn what the law says. You also came on here claiming the Giz did nothing wrong and you now claim that you haven't read the articles to even be half-way educated on the topic to even discuss it?

Wow no wonder I had to hold you hand through the process and teach you your ABCs too.

 

[cmaier]

Purchased it and immediately handed it over when it was asked for. It's going to be hard to convince a jury that constitutes as theft.

"Your honor - I was just going for a joy ride. I returned the car as soon as I was caught."

 

[The Mad Hatter]

While the FINDER should have returned it to Apple, Apple should be stupid and give a prototype iPhone worth more that you would think it is (R&D, trade secrets) to some immature dumbass "engineer" This Gray guy obviously isn't ready to handle trade secrets. You DON'T go out and get drunk, with a important gadget. First off a mature person wouldn't be getting drunk anyways. And to get drunk with a prototype? Thats Gray Powell's fault. Also its apples. They can't be expecting an immature 27 year old guy to not get drunk.
I hostly don't care if the seller dude stole it. Apple shouldn't be giving a very important thing to some retard that gets drunk and loses it. Its Gizmodo's job to report tech news, and they did their job.
Yes the finder should have done more, and Giz should have returned it sooner. But they didn't know it was a prototype... it could have been a knockoff and they purchased a real deal.

You know, as far as I recall, we don't even know if he was drunk. Sure, he was in a bar, but does that mean he was drunk. The only info we have so far is coming from Gizmodo and their credibility is in question. Apple and Gray are being wise to stay quiet (unlike the lip-flapping Gizmodo.) So until we know the facts, keep your speculative opinion to yourself.

BTW, as soon as you said the above (bolded.) You lost all credibility.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Daring Fireball's snarky remark:

So, Gray Powell’s personal details get plastered all over Gizmodo. Jason Chen’s get pixelated.

And a little humor:

 

[quackquack]

No one is getting angry, we're just tired of kids coming on thinking that it's ok to take other people's property and turn around and sell it for a quick buck. Also if you had taken half the time to post all of your replies and did five minutes of your own research you would learn what the law says. You also came on he claiming the Giz did nothing erring and you now claim that you haven't read the articles to even be half-way educated on the topic to even discuss it?

Wow no wonder I had to hold you hand through the process and teach you your ABCs too.

Yup, I definitely think it's OK to take people's property and turn it around for a quick buck. Not once did I defend that dude.

I never said Gizmodo did nothing erring, I was just trying to discuss the legal aspect of the case. It appears that you don't have the emotional maturity to do that without getting all bent out of shape. Maybe it's bed time?

 

[Mark Booth]

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. I wonder how much money Apple will lose because we saw the iPhone early and it is nothing surprising. Next to nothing. If anything it is extra publicity. The culture of secretiveness is all very well, don't start making it out to be a matter of life and death.

The amount of money Apple may have lost because we saw the new iPhone early is IMMATERIAL for the criminal investigation. The amount of money Apple may have lost will be a large part of the CIVIL lawsuit.

Nobody with any common sense can deny that a prototype iPhone -particularly one that had never been revealed to competitors- is worth millions of dollars. Apple spends HUGE sums of money on research and development. This prototype iPhone wasn't any old run of the mill iPhone, it represented a very very large financial investment by Apple.

THAT is the issue of the criminal investigation. This wasn't a $5,000 iPhone, it was a $1,000,000 iPhone. Now, the jokers would quip that Gizmodo got a good price then. But it's no longer a laughing matter now, is it. A Gawker Media editor's home has been raided and his computer equipment confiscated. It seems pretty obvious that the police/DA are not only looking for the identity of the person that "found" the prototype iPhone, but also evidence that might link Jason Chen and/or Gizmodo/Gawker Media to a FELONY violation.

This is serious stuff! A felony isn't a traffic ticket. This could not only put people behind bars, but ruin their entire lives. Try getting gainful employment with a felony on your record. And some felons that used computers in the commission of their crime are barred from touching or using a computer for some extended period of time. There could be all sorts of ramifications.

As I said earlier, I honestly feel bad for Jason Chen. But he was playing with fire and now he's gotten burned. It will be interesting to see if Johnny Law ends up reaching all the way to New York.

Lastly, imagine what it would be like to be the person that "found" the iPhone and then sold it to Gizmodo. He might already be in custody for all we know. But if he isn't, do you think he's getting any sleep? Yeah.... with one eye open waiting for a knock at the door! Not fun!

Mark

 

[Bueller007]

What I was getting at earlier was whether you think that being a prototype means it's necessarily owned by Apple. I don't think you can make this claim. I think they knew it was owned by Apple when Apple claimed it.

"You are looking at Apple's next iPhone ... It's the real thing, and here are all the details." (Emphasis mine.)

That was the first line of the main story. There was another section called "Why we think it's definitely real".

 

[quackquack]

"You are looking at Apple's next iPhone ... It's the real thing, and here are all the details." (Emphasis mine.)

That was the first line of the main story. There was another section called "Why we think it's definitely real".

OK - for the last time. There's no debate about whether or not they thought it was real. They obviously did. They couldn't be sure, but they speculated that it was. The question is if being a real prototype means that it's Apple's property (or stolen for that matter). Prototypes can be owned by individuals as well, right?

 

[Revelation78]

Yup, I definitely think it's OK to take people's property and turn it around for a quick buck. Not once did I defend that dude.

I never said Gizmodo did nothing erring, I was just trying to discuss the legal aspect of the case. It appears that you don't have the emotional maturity to do that without getting all bent out of shape. Maybe it's bed time?

Nice one on the emotional maturity. You weren't trying to discuss it, you were having a one way conversation. You weren't even open to other people's posts yet you wanted everyone to take what you type as fact.

You even went so far as to ignore quotes of California law and run off in your own tangent. You also said multiple times that Giz did nothing wrong, do I have to go back and quote all of your posts now too?

 

[cmaier]

OK - for the last time. There's no debate about whether or not they thought it was real. They obviously did. The question is if being a real prototype means that it's Apple's property. Prototypes can be owned by individuals as well, right?

When did that become the question? It was given by Apple to Gray to use to test as part of his job responsibilities. It was clearly owned by Apple. Sure, to the "finder" it may also have belonged to Gray, and it would have been reasonable to return it to him.

 

[Bueller007]

Purchased it and immediately handed it over when it was asked for.

Yes, but not as soon as they determined (to their own satisfaction, and according to their own words) the owner. In the time between determining this and returning the phone, they decided to use it for their own benefit and to the great detriment of the actual owner.