San Francisco Police Did Assist Apple in House Search of iPhone 5

[kdarling]

I am not sure. Which way do you think it would of gone? I am leaning towards they would of let it go because they wouldnt want the publicity of another stolen phone....had they arrested him it would of been bad PR.

I truly don't know; that's why I'm open to everyone's thoughts. I think they were stuck between a rock and hard place.

Bringing the police wasn't a good sign for just letting him go. At the same time, without the police, they couldn't have as easily gotten inside.

Personally, I would've gone for making a huge offer without any police at the door, but threaten to bring them in if he wouldn't produce the phone.

Instead, I think it's clear they were pretty sure they'd find the phone (or evidence of the phone) if they got inside. Unfortunately, they didn't.

 

[BigPrince]

I truly don't know; that's why I'm open to everyone's thoughts. I think they were stuck between a rock and hard place.

Bringing the police wasn't a good sign for just letting him go. At the same time, without the police, they couldn't have as easily gotten inside.

Personally, I would've gone for making a huge offer without any police at the door, but threaten to bring them in if he wouldn't produce the phone.

Instead, I think it's clear they were pretty sure they'd find the phone (or evidence of the phone) if they got inside. Unfortunately, they didn't.

They probably went in way over confidant....and they could of wanted to arrest him and make an example out of him too....

 

[mutantteenager]

It's good to know the police are always on hand to do the bidding of a billion dollar corporation.

 

[laurim]

I'm curious. If I lost my iPhone and had one of those apps that lo-jack it and it tells me where it is via gps, wouldn't the police accompany me to see if whoever's at that location has it? How does that work?

 

[BigPrince]

It's good to know the police are always on hand to do the bidding of a billion dollar corporation.

You make it sound like Apple has no right to Police access.

 

[Cartaphilus]

I'm curious. If I lost my iPhone and had one of those apps that lo-jack it and it tells me where it is via gps, wouldn't the police accompany me to see if whoever's at that location has it? How does that work?

Do you have a credit card receipt from the bar where you lost it showing that the person who lives in that location was at that same bar when you lost it? No? Even so, I'm sure if there isn't too much going on in town at the time, the police would be happy to try to help. That is, of course, assuming you have a reputation as a serious and responsible person, and not that of a smart-ass twit, but I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem for you.

 

[Mal]

I'm curious. If I lost my iPhone and had one of those apps that lo-jack it and it tells me where it is via gps, wouldn't the police accompany me to see if whoever's at that location has it? How does that work?

Indeed they would. In fact, there have been stories of exactly this happening. Seems to me it's exactly the same as what Apple did. They knew where the phone likely was, but in case the person who had it was unwilling to give it up or got violent, they asked the police to accompany them, just like Apple did here. That's part of the role of the police, and it does not require any formal report or charges (actually, many private citizens would rather not start a formal police investigation until they've confirmed that an actual illegal act has been committed, not just a good Samaritan intending to find the owner and return the item).

In this case, there are three likely scenarios that I've come up with (there may be others and none of these may be the correct one):

1. Mr Calderone may have taken the phone, and it was hidden somewhere in the house and not found.

2. Mr Calderone may have taken the phone, and it had been given to someone else already and no longer at his house.

3. Mr Calderone did not take the phone, and someone else who did was in close vicinity to his home, but at that point turned off the phone and ended the trail for Apple.

jW

 

[cere]

I agree that those points sound plausible. At the same time, here's a question:

IF they had found the phone at that person's home, do you think Apple would've asked the accompanying policeman to arrest him?

Or do you think, to stay low key, they would've simply taken it and done nothing else ?

They might have asked the police to arrest him if they found it and he refused to return it. Of course, if Apple found it in the house, the case wouldn't get very far, given Apple was both the party that lost it and the party the found it. Defense lawyers play up planted evidence when police are involved. How much more play would they get out of private security finding their own evidence?

 

[cere]

I truly don't know; that's why I'm open to everyone's thoughts. I think they were stuck between a rock and hard place.

Bringing the police wasn't a good sign for just letting him go. At the same time, without the police, they couldn't have as easily gotten inside.

Personally, I would've gone for making a huge offer without any police at the door, but threaten to bring them in if he wouldn't produce the phone.

Instead, I think it's clear they were pretty sure they'd find the phone (or evidence of the phone) if they got inside. Unfortunately, they didn't.

I think a lot of the answers depends on how soon after it was lost did they search the house. If it was the same night, then yes, they probably would have expected to find something in the house or on the PC, yet they didn't. The $300 offer was incredibly small in that case.

But, if it was weeks later, that brings up a new set of questions. When was the phone last traced to the house? If it was the night it was lost and they didn't show up until days or weeks later, then Sergio may have had it and gotten rid of it long before the search. They would have less reason to think it would still be in the house. In that case, the $300 offer maybe makes sense (a little) as more of a token gesture of "we know it's gone, but any info would be helpful". If the phone was traced to being around his house for days/weeks after it was lost, then they would be pretty certain he was the person that found it and had no intention of returning it. It doesn't seem they were that confident, or they would have made a bigger fuss about it. The only reason not to file a formal report at that point would be to keep things quiet, but to ehat end? The new models will be released in a few weeks anyway, the description could be vague enough not to give much away about the actual device but enough to ID it (DVT/EVT sticker, iOS version, false case, IMEI, serial number). Yes, the story would be embarrassing, but the report itself wouldn't leak much info and would allow the police to actual investigate it properly.

 

[Pomeless]

I disagree.

I think both Apple and the SFPD severely crossed the line in this case. At a minimum, the 6 involved should all lose their jobs. BUT, you cannot sue for an act of which you consented. Ultimately, he could have closed the door and told them to get lost. He CONSENTED to their search of his house and car.

Sure why not. I'm sure that he stashed it somewhere else anyway.

 

[cere]

Like anyone else can... I can search your house if I come over to your house and ask you to search it for something and you say it is okay.

Not entirely correct. It is correct that, generally, forth amendment protections do not apply to private security searches and it is correct that consent given to law enforcement or private security allows for a legal search. But there are some legal caveats.

1) Consented search must be freely and voluntarily given. Consent gained through fraud or under undue duress may not be considered to be either free or voluntary. They don't have to inform you of you rights to deny the warrant-less search, but there are limitations on how the may go about convincing you to allow the search.
2) Private security, while not normally required to act under the same restrictions as law enforcement, may be considered to be acting as 'state' law enforcement if they meet certain criteria where they are acting or appear to be acting as government law enforcement. (Did they work in cooperation with or under supervision of police, were they moonlighting police, were they identified as police, are they licensed security officers, were they wearing police-like uniform or badges?). If they are held to be acting for the state, then the higher standards required of law enforcement might be applied to them as well.

Either or both could potentially be applied here. While both are now generally moot points as nothing was found during the searches, they might both be used in a civil trial if Mr. Calderon was to push a claim of his civil liberties being violated by a potentially illegal search.

Please note that I am NOT claiming the search was illegal. Only that there may be some ambiguity in how the permission for the search was obtained and the legal status of the Apple employees at the time they gained access to his home. There is tons of ambiguity in either of those caveats, so I am sure the police and Apple would put up very strong counter arguments.

 

[kdarling]

I'm curious. If I lost my iPhone and had one of those apps that lo-jack it and it tells me where it is via gps, wouldn't the police accompany me to see if whoever's at that location has it? How does that work?

Yes, anyone can ask the police for what is called "civil standby", where they come along to keep the peace, but that's about it.

With civil standby, which is normally used for rental or marriage disputes and the like, the police cannot decide who owns what property or anything like that.

For that, Apple would probably have to get a court order stating it is the rightful owner of the lost phone. I wonder if they already had one in this case.

It's not the use of police to accompany them that's borderline here. That's legal and not uncommon. To me, it's the idea that an Apple employee wanted to search a stranger's home, and kind of snuck their way in to do so. That just doesn't sit well with me, even if it's understandable from their standpoint.

 

[weespeed]

SFPD is now going to investigate....
Now we can hopefully find out what happened, unless some other weird, shady thing happens...

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_sfpd_investigation.php

 

[wonderspark]

The cops stepped in some seriously stinky poop here, and I'm glad they're being investigated. I hope some lessons are learned by both SFPD and Apple here in regards to how to handle a lost phone.

It sucks that Apple keeps losing them in the first place (especially in bars!) but I think the way they handled it here compounded the problem.

 

[AidenShaw]

I can't wait for tomorrow's installment

SFPD is now going to investigate....
Now we can hopefully find out what happened, unless some other weird, shady thing happens...

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_sfpd_investigation.php

The cops stepped in some seriously stinky poop here, and I'm glad they're being investigated. I hope some lessons are learned by both SFPD and Apple here in regards to how to handle a lost phone.

It sucks that Apple keeps losing them in the first place (especially in bars!) but I think the way they handled it here compounded the problem.

Yes, this story has legs, and becomes more interesting every day - in spite of some fans' attempts to dismiss it as "done".

 

[charlituna]

The cops stepped in some seriously stinky poop here,

It's only stinky poop if the police overstepped their bounds but from the sound of it they were within rights. You don't need a warrant to do a search if you are invited in and apparently the private parties were. There's no proof anyone was unclear about who each person was or even that anyone made any threats. That all came from this Sergio fellow who could have been lying to make a juicier story

it's also possible that the parties that came to the police lied about being connected to Apple or how.

Yes, this story has legs, and becomes more interesting every day - in spite of some fans' attempts to dismiss it as "done".

The fans aren't dismissing it as done. Unless you mean the Gizmodo and Android fans that love to see Apple look bad

the Apple fans are generally believing that the truth in this story is far from what we have been told as the truth

 

[wonderspark]

It's only stinky poop if the police overstepped their bounds but from the sound of it they were within rights. You don't need a warrant to do a search if you are invited in and apparently the private parties were. There's no proof anyone was unclear about who each person was or even that anyone made any threats. That all came from this Sergio fellow who could have been lying to make a juicier story

it's also possible that the parties that came to the police lied about being connected to Apple or how.

Sure... I guess SFPD has nothing better to do than a) help Apple find lost phones, and b) open internal investigations for fun.

The fact that there's an IA case on it now suggests that the police DID "overstep their bounds." If everything was groovy, they wouldn't bother to look into it... unless it's just a ruse to make people think they're doing due diligence, right? So which is it... did the cops with Apple on scene screw up, or is the SFPD command staff making a bogus IA case to fool the public? No matter how you slice it, someone has stinky poop on their shoes.

I used to believe the police were 99% honest and made choices based on integrity myself, until I worked for them for fifteen years. Now I know better. There are just as many lying sacks of #%@& in law enforcement as there are anywhere else in the world. The only difference is that they think their authority can cover up the stink. The problem is that it usually does, thanks to so many people who backwardly think anyone accused is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[cere]

It's only stinky poop if the police overstepped their bounds but from the sound of it they were within rights. You don't need a warrant to do a search if you are invited in and apparently the private parties were. There's no proof anyone was unclear about who each person was or even that anyone made any threats. That all came from this Sergio fellow who could have been lying to make a juicier story

Yes, the info we have is from Sergio. He says it was unclear and that threats were made. What we don't have is anyone from SFPD or Apple denying his claims. That's your reasoning for assuming he is lying?

it's also possible that the parties that came to the police lied about being connected to Apple or how.

Seriously? The two guys decided it would be a good idea to call up the SFPD, lie to them about their roles at Apple, lied to them about ownership of property, convinced them to assist in a search for that property and the searched a private residence, in the presence of the SFPD all for a gag?

WTF?

The fans aren't dismissing it as done. Unless you mean the Gizmodo and Android fans that love to see Apple look bad

Actually, since it started, we've had people claiming it was a hoax, claiming Sergio is making it all up, after SFPD confirmed parts of Sergio's story people feel a need to continue to question his credibility and now we have you suggesting it might have been a game played by a couple people that may or may not have been Apple employees.

I am an Apple fan. I don't want them to look bad, but hell if I'll stoop to those levels just to put my mind at ease about their possible actions and behavior here.

the Apple fans are generally believing that the truth in this story is far from what we have been told as the truth

No. Only some Apple fans need it to not be the truth. Is it the complete story? Obviously no. Is it 'far from the truth'? Maybe, maybe not. Intelligent people will wait for more info before just assuming it is 'far from the truth'. That would be premature and sort of bizarre.

 

[wirelessness]

Get a Warrant!!!

If some guys from Apple or any other multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate like Koch Industries came to my door requesting entrance for a search of my private residence I would tell them to 'get a warrant'.

I seriously can't understand how anyone can defend this type of activity. The fact that the police were there does not make this legal. Everyone is defending Apple as 'innocent until proven guilty'...what about Mr. Calderón's Civil Rights? If enough evidence was available that he was in illegal procession of Apple property a search warrant should have been produced.

I am a huge fan of Apple products but this is outrageous!!!

 

[BigPrince]

snip

Just curious....Is something only illegal if you get caught?

 

[cere]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

snip

Just curious....Is something only illegal if you get caught?

Good question. Another might be, if you are innocent of a crime, should you be assumed guilty because it fits someone's narrative better?

 

[Mal]

If some guys from Apple or any other multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate like Koch Industries came to my door requesting entrance for a search of my private residence I would tell them to 'get a warrant'.

I seriously can't understand how anyone can defend this type of activity. The fact that the police were there does not make this legal. Everyone is defending Apple as 'innocent until proven guilty'...what about Mr. Calderón's Civil Rights? If enough evidence was available that he was in illegal procession of Apple property a search warrant should have been produced.

I am a huge fan of Apple products but this is outrageous!!!

A warrant is only needed if permission is not granted by the owner of the residence. If you'd bothered to read even a small portion of this thread, you'd have seen that noted many times. In this case, permission was granted, so no warranty was necessary.

jW

 

[BigPrince]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



Good question. Another might be, if you are innocent of a crime, should you be assumed guilty because it fits someone's narrative better?

No, but we shouldn't assume either side. People are pretending there are facts here to fit their own narratives.

 

[cere]

A warrant is only needed if permission is not granted by the owner of the residence. If you'd bothered to read even a small portion of this thread, you'd have seen that noted many times. In this case, permission was granted, so no warranty was necessary.

jW

actually, no, that is a very naive misconception.

Consent must be voluntary and freely given. The police cannot use fraud or undue duress in order to gain consent.

 

[cere]

No, but we shouldn't assume either side. People are pretending there are facts here to fit their own narratives.

Right, so please let's stick to the facts.

Let's not assume Calderon is a lying thief. That takes an assumption of facts that do not exist and have not been suggested by any involved party. If and when we have those, then people can use them to try to discredit Calderon. Until then, you have no facts to even call his story into question.

What do we have to question the behavior of the SFPD and the two Apple employees?

-SFPD claims Apple employees requested the incident be kept off the books, in contradiction to the SFPD regs. A 26 year police vet would know that isn't kosher.
-SFPD claims the officers agreed to keep it off the books and that is why the dept could not find any record of it when the story first broke.
- SFPD claims they attended the residence in the role of a "civil standby", in order to ensure safety and security of Apple employees and the resident. Yet, they waited outside while those two parties were alone in the house, resulting in them ensuring neither safety not security or either party.

Those are what the SFPD has acknowledged. Calderon's claims of being visited by a group of police, his house being searched by 2 out of the group of 6, the name of an Apple security employee being left with him and his being at the bar on the night the phone was stolen have all been confirmed (well, that part about being at the bar is taking him at his word..maybe he is lying about that).

But by all means, let's make some assumptions, that he is a lying thief, to try to discredit the rest of his story. If the SFPD are being honest and accurate now, then so far Calderon is the only party whose credibility is not shot, based only on the statements by the SFPD.