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

[Mal]

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.

There is no proof of either. I'm not naive, either, and I'd appreciate you not insulting me so. My brother is on the local SWAT team here, and I know more about police procedure than most. I'm not talking out my backside here. Can't say the same for everyone here...

jW

 

[samcraig]

There is no proof of either. I'm not naive, either, and I'd appreciate you not insulting me so. My brother is on the local SWAT team here, and I know more about police procedure than most. I'm not talking out my backside here. Can't say the same for everyone here...

jW

That's not the only reason to have a warrant either. A warrant outlines exactly what can be searched and what specifically they are looking for. Without it - even with consent - it's extremely likely that even if they FOUND something - it would be inadmissible in a court if brought to trial.

 

[cere]

There is no proof of either. I'm not naive, either, and I'd appreciate you not insulting me so. My brother is on the local SWAT team here, and I know more about police procedure than most. I'm not talking out my backside here. Can't say the same for everyone here...

jW

Was just correcting your overly broad statement. The actual law and court decisions state that consent must be free and voluntary. You said

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.

Which, of course, is only party true. It depends on how that permission was granted. Permission might be granted under circumstances that would still require a warrant. I fixed it for you. "Don't be mad brah"

Your statement was a little like saying "she consented to sex, so it was OK". Well, that way too overly broad a statement and is therefore not totally true. Your statement similarly wasn't completely true. Either that was out of naiveté or dishonestly. I am sorry if you though my assumption that it was naive insulted you. I would have thought the alternative was more insulting, but have it your way.

Why do people get so pissy when they are shown to be wrong? Maybe your brother can better inform you of the law. Or better, in my experience with cops, you'd be better to ask a lawyer than a cop in matters of law.

 

[wirelessness]

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

Let's see, how often do 4 non-uniformed Police officials show up at the door of a private residence requesting permission to search the premises without first obtaining a warrant? Not very often because most people would tell them to kiss off.

There is no way permission to enter and search the private residence was obtained without some form of intimidation and or deception. This person clearly felt he had no other alternative but to consent to this violation of his Civil Rights.

This is way beyond the pale of typical Apple bashing. No matter how much I love my Apple products this type of action cannot be defended.

 

[cere]

Let's see, how often do 4 non-uniformed Police officials show up at the door of a private residence requesting permission to search the premises without first obtaining a warrant? Not very often because most people would tell them to kiss off.

There is no way permission to enter and search the private residence was obtained without some form of intimidation and or deception. This person clearly felt he had no other alternative but to consent to this violation of his Civil Rights.

This is way beyond the pale of typical Apple bashing. No matter how much I love my Apple products this type of action cannot be defended.

You have to understand the mindset.

Mal will say there is no evidence of intimidation or deception. There is a claim of such from Calderon but he might be a lying thief (despite the lack of any claims that he is, any evidence that he is or any real reason to think that he is) so we can't trust him. He will conveniently fail to mention that there is also no evidence that consent was gained, other than Calderon's word. Evidence is suddenly not as important to his assumptions. But in this case, he will choose to believe Calderon that he gave consent (though not the full statement that it was given through deceit and under duress. I suppose he could also be relying on the trustworthiness of the SFPD and their officers, despite the FACT that their story has already changed and that they acknowledge the officers breached their own protocol by keeping the incident off the books at Apple's request and are launching an investigation into their actions.

The facts speak volumes as to who is more credible, at this point. Yet, some people are choosing to rely on the credibility of parties that have given and offered reasons to question their credibility and integrity. The only person whose credibility they do question is the only one whose store has held up without change (parts have held up, the rest has not been denied or challenged by the other parties), has offered his side in full and has given no reason to question his credibility.

 

[wirelessness]

Under NO circumstance should employees of Apple wearing 'Badges' be appearing on peoples doorsteps requesting permission to search their private residence. Period.

I don't care if they thought the guy was hiding Steve Jobs in there. This is not acceptable.

 

[Mal]

You have to understand the mindset.

Mal will say there is no evidence of intimidation or deception. There is a claim of such from Calderon but he might be a lying thief (despite the lack of any claims that he is, any evidence that he is or any real reason to think that he is) so we can't trust him. He will conveniently fail to mention that there is also no evidence that consent was gained, other than Calderon's word. Evidence is suddenly not as important to his assumptions. But in this case, he will choose to believe Calderon that he gave consent (though not the full statement that it was given through deceit and under duress. I suppose he could also be relying on the trustworthiness of the SFPD and their officers, despite the FACT that their story has already changed and that they acknowledge the officers breached their own protocol by keeping the incident off the books at Apple's request and are launching an investigation into their actions.

The facts speak volumes as to who is more credible, at this point. Yet, some people are choosing to rely on the credibility of parties that have given and offered reasons to question their credibility and integrity. The only person whose credibility they do question is the only one whose store has held up without change (parts have held up, the rest has not been denied or challenged by the other parties), has offered his side in full and has given no reason to question his credibility.

The evidence that permission was indeed granted is the fact that they searched the premises. If permission had not been granted, they would've had to turn around and leave and come back with a warrant. Logical enough for you?

I'm gonna have to bow out here, because I can't keep responding to posts like this without violating some serious rules around here.

jW

 

[cere]

The evidence that permission was indeed granted is the fact that they searched the premises. If permission had not been granted, they would've had to turn around and leave and come back with a warrant. Logical enough for you?

???? That makes no sense at all. I can't believe you actually took the time to write that. I said there was no evidence of consent to search. You argue the consent has to have occurred because they searched. "The rape was consensual because they had sex" Sorry, no that is not logical. Please don't argue logic if you don't understand logic.

You have no idea if it was consensual other than taking Calderon at his word that he agreed. He could have said the kicked his door in and you wouldn't take his word for it. How come you take his word that he consented? And if you take his word that he consented, why don't you take his word that he consented only because he was told the group at his door were SFPD officers and that he was threatened?

I'm gonna have to bow out here, because I can't keep responding to posts like this without violating some serious rules around here.

That would be best because fixing the fundamental errors in all of your last few posts is tiresome, but better than letting erroneous information just stand.

 

[wirelessness]

He probably did give them 'consent' to search. That doesn't mean he wasn't doing so out of fear or ignorance of his rights under the law.

It doesn't even matter. The point is Apple security employees (read thugs) should not be showing up at peoples homes requesting access to search a private residence.

 

[cere]

He probably did give them 'consent' to search. That doesn't mean he wasn't doing so out of fear or ignorance of his rights under the law.

It doesn't even matter. The point is Apple security employees (read thugs) should not be showing up at peoples homes requesting access to search a private residence.

He says he gave them consent. He says he was threatened and was convinced he was giving consent to police officers. I don't understand how some people take parts of his statement and leave others. Conveniently, the only parts they toss are the ones that don't fit their view.

I mean, if he really wanted to simply take advantage of the situation, he could have just said that the police (or Apple employees) told him they had a warrant and he let them in based on that . The Supreme Court, in a case where exactly that happened, ruled the search was illegal because the police lied about having a warrant (Bumper v. North Carolina, c1968). If Calderon was just out to make a buck, he could claim this and who could claim otherwise? The police? They could try, but while explaining that they had not said that, they would also have to explain why they hid their involvement if nothing hinky was happening. Would not look good to a judge. Apple's employees? Given they performed their search out of sight of the police and further asked the police to keep the incident off the books, they also would have credibility problems. But, Calderon never did this. He only said he did indeed give consent to the police to search his home. That's it, yet these people need him to be lying, but can't bring up a single, rational reason to conclude he is a liar.