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

[lilo777]

I wasn't implying a "hot pursuit" situation - just one that wouldn't have done well taking the time for official reports to be filed and completed.

I was in agreement Apple had the help of the police. If they [the police] had enough information that a crime was possibly being committed, especially if the value of the property put the crime into the felony category (easily met), I would be surprised if they wouldn't have come up with that additional information.

Now we have more information about what transpired. According to police spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield:

"Apple employees called Mission Police station directly, wanting assistance in tracking down a lost item.

Apple employees were then referred to the Ingleside station because the house in question, on Anderson Street, was in that police district."

So, it would appear that Apple police already had the address when they contacted SF police.

And then it gets even more interesting: "Four SFPD Officers accompanied Apple employees to the Anderson street home. The two Apple employees met with the resident and then went into the house to look for the lost item. The Apple employees did not find the lost item and left the house."

If one were to believe the guy who got raided, he was contacted by SF police. Which means that at best Apple police misled the guy about their true nature.

 

[M7ck]

Why is Apple searching someone's home?

ffs read the story before commenting

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.

Why should anyone lose there jobs? Like you said he consented to the search.

Dude you are so wrong.
There is no way the police will involve themselves in a civil matter.
Yes they should tell Apple to go deal with it through the civil court process.
That they didn't sends a clear message that Apple are way more important than regular poor folk like us.

Theft is a civil matter? The stupidness in this post is unbelievable

Did he know he could say no

Ignorance is not an excuse.

For once I agree with you. Next story please.

If Calderon let them into his home, there's not a whole lot that can be done.

Yay a sensible post.

By the definitions we see posted here, that old lady as a thief. She took it. That makes her a thief, right?

Yes she is a thief as she never made an effort to find the real owner, she could have handed it in to any police station.

 

[wonderspark]

...So while this fellow may find some publicity-hungry lawyer to file a vituperative complaint, no real money is ever going to be paid to either of them.

I hope not, because if the lawyer was stupid enough to bring a lawsuit filled with vituperation, it would most likely be dismissed. Hopefully, he finds a better one than that.

 

[gr8tfly]

Now we have more information about what transpired. According to police spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield:

"Apple employees called Mission Police station directly, wanting assistance in tracking down a lost item.

Apple employees were then referred to the Ingleside station because the house in question, on Anderson Street, was in that police district."

So, it would appear that Apple police already had the address when they contacted SF police.

And then it gets even more interesting: "Four SFPD Officers accompanied Apple employees to the Anderson street home. The two Apple employees met with the resident and then went into the house to look for the lost item. The Apple employees did not find the lost item and left the house."

If one were to believe the guy who got raided, he was contacted by SF police. Which means that at best Apple police misled the guy about their true nature.

Interesting, but how could the guy not know they were Apple employees? It's very unlikely the officer(s) didn't make that point clear - especially if they didn't accompany the Apple employees (Apple does not have their own police force) into the house.

As for the address - even if an exact street address can't be determined, the street itself is easily within the capability of an iPhone's location services. Why jump to the conclusion that this device has much poorer capabilities than my 3GS? Those are the kind of statements I just don't understand. It has nothing to do with Apple being right or wrong - it's just that there's no need to go beyond what's reasonable behavior - especially for inanimate objects. They really do work the same whether they belong to Apple, or you or I.

 

[gnasher729]

And you know this because you were there??

And the lawyers for Mr. Sergio Calderón will have a field day with this if the SFPD and Apple employee questioned his legal residence status as well as the other people in the house and used that to persuade him to let them search his house and his car.

It's not done. Not at all.

It's not done at all because this is the third version of the story, but certainly not the last. The first one sounded plausible. The second one which had all the Apple haters up in arms did _not_ sound plausible. The third one, mixing one and two, would have sounded reasonable if it had been the first one, but being the third story it sounds very much like a reaction to the the fact that story number two didn't sound right.

Meanwhile Apple hasn't said a word.

Don't you need a warrant to enter and search someone's home?

No. You need a warrant if the home owner is not there or disagrees with the search. You don't need a warrant if the home owner agrees to the search.

 

[wonderspark]

It seems there IS such a thing as bad press after all.

This article isn't very flattering.

 

[onigami]

Honestly, this is a bigger deal than most people think. Regardless of what Mr. Calderón did, the problem is that Apple is using their corporate authority to pervert justice to their own means. Apple should have been nowhere near that residence, period. As stated before, Apple does not have its own police (and it should not), and even though this is their property, they should be leaving this matter to the SFPD, not sending their own "security" in to investigate. It's a disgrace that SFPD allowed this, and the officers plus brass who signed off on this should be fired.

And people shouldn't be hard on Mr. Calderón. I used to live in the Mission District/Bernal Heights area (around 26th Street), so I've dealt with people there. Odds are, given how hard ICE is in this city toward Latinos (while turning a big blind eye on the Chinese and Russians), the last thing Mr. Calderón wanted was to have SFPD putting his face on the pavement for refusing to comply to a search, and then find his relatives deported the following week. Out there, you do what you're told, lest you risk losing everything.

 

[marksman]

I'll let the SF Lawyers figure that out.

From what has happened and has been reported, the SFPD were out of line. They went to his house with Apple employees and questioned his legality in being in the us. Then they didn't follow protocol and never recorded it.

That's just waiting for a lawyer to sue on infringing his rights.

As for Apple, if the Apple employees entered his house on the pretense they were SFPD then there is your problem.

Either way he is going to get money.

Are you familiar with US laws? By the way following department procedure has nothing to do with infringing on his rights. The police never went into his apartment, and the police are certainly free to question his status as a citizen of the US. That is not out of line.

----------

No. Apple requested officers from the SFPD attend a residence with them in order to gain entry to search the house, vehicle and computers in that private residence. If not for the police presence and implied intimidation, do you think it is likely Apple security would have otherwise gained that access? Nothing like the threat of police action against you (implicit in their being there) to gain cooperation from some.

If I bring a goon to your house, with the implied thread he will break you legs unless you give me money, is only the goon outside guilty of extortion?

The police were there for his protection as well. Your assertions are ridiculous.

If an adult allows private security to search their home because the police are there to oversee things, that is on that person, nobody else.

----------

Well if that's what the police are for, then I will be stopping by for 4 police to "Assist" be to by friend Billy's house so he can pay me the $300 he owes me right?

I guess if you are a high enough tax payer you get Police to "assist" you on your loss of prototype material because dumbass employees can't drink and lose things easily

Yeah amazingly enough all crimes are not equal, so crimes that have a higher importance can garner more attention. It is amazing how large police organizations prioritize like that.

----------

Because they are the new Big Brother!
Ironic huh
Nice to see how the SFPD can get involved in a civil matter ...guess they have the man power to spare...and your tax dollars to waste.

Since when is stealing property a civil matter?

----------

Hollywood? Please.

At least four cops, six people in total, show up at your door asking for entry. You aren't a little intimidated?

No, but I do not have anything to hide and I am not a criminal. I also know my rights.

Personally, I don't think the physically intimidated or threatened him. That many cops at your door is intimidating enough. But if the rest of Sergio's story is true, and it certainly seems to be being confirm as we find out more, then they also used racist implied threats of deportation (and misplaced as he is a citizen) to help persuade him.

Nothing hollywood about that.

If the guy is here illegally he is here illegally. If you think the police threatening to arrest someone for committing a crime they committed is a threat, then so be it. If he is here legally, he would have nothing to worry about.

 

[onigami]

The police were there for his protection as well. Your assertions are ridiculous.

If an adult allows private security to search their home because the police are there to oversee things, that is on that person, nobody else.

Except this "security" threatened Mr. Calderón using his relatives. That the SFPD did not actually intervene on that (in that not even the SFPD have the authority to deport/revoke a visa/etc.) asserts that they were complicit in the intimidation.

It is sort of like with extraordinary rendition: Just because we didn't torture certain captives, does not mean we are not complicit in their torture if we knew in advance where said captives were going.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Imagine if Calderon knows nothing about the missing phone. Of course that never entered anyone's mind, did it? Apple said the phone was at his house so that means he is guilty of theft. Maybe the GPS is wrong and it was at his neighbors house. And the Keystone cops were too dumb to figure that out.

 

[marksman]

I'm not saying what they did was illegal, especially if they got permission, i'm saying that it's not their business to be searching anyone's private property. I wouldn't want my employees searching someone's private property alone, maybe aid in the search since they know what they're looking for but having two cops sit outside while your employees go in and do a search of someone's private property isn't cool to me.

Why not? It was a very expensive device that they wanted to get back. They had a general idea where it was at... why would you not want your trained security team to try and find it for you? What else would you do, just shrug your shoulders and say oh well?

----------

It seems that many here are avoiding the clear issue that Apple pulled the Big Brother tactic of lying and strong arming this guy.

What did they lie about? And how did they strong arm him?

"Do you mind if we search your apartment?"

----------

2. Two corporate security officers and four police officers showing up at your door WITHOUT a warrant and asking to search your home is intimidation. If the police knew they had a legitimate claim they would have had a warrant.

It is VERY common for police to ask for consent to search places and things without a warrant. It is also VERY common for that consent to be given and VERY common for those searches to take place. You are just flat wrong in your expectation that police should have a warrant just in case they might want to search something. Asking for consent for a search is completely acceptable.

That being said, it is wholly irrelevant for this case because the police did not search anything. They just oversaw the investigation of some potential loss and stolen property. As I mentioned the police were there just as much for this guy as they were for Apple. Their presence prevented Apple from doing anything untoward.

----------

He didn't let Apple. He let SFPD.

You have NO idea if that is true. The police were there. It is unlikely they allowed Apple Security to pose as police officers. Regardless, he let them in to search. Whether it was Apple or the Police is not terribly material because he let them come in. Police do not have some special right to come into your house and search it. The only reason they can do it is if you let them, just like if you let anyone else do it.

I would love for some of you to have 6 men come to your door and then ask if you're a citizen. Then say you are all in a lot of trouble and see what you would do.
It's easy to criticize Mr Calderon and be arm chair quarterbacks is easy. Wait till it happens to you.
So yeah. We will see.

Wouldn't bother me at all. I have been faced with more than 6 men before... I don't have anything to hide, so why would it matter if there was 1 or 100?

Also nobody told him he was in a lot of trouble. Even his own questionable words don't claim that. His implication is that they would be in trouble if they are not legal citizens. That is not untrue.

 

[SeaFox]

Bad reporting isn't really the problem.

The problem is that people around here actually bought into the notion (and did it so damn easily) that Apple and the cops were somehow involved in some shady conspiracy-type business.

What would be the point of having police accompany Apple's investigators only to remain outside the apartment once they get there? Does Apple have difficulty finding addresses on their own? (there's an App for that!)

Either:

1. The police actually did take part in the questioning and search inside the apartment, and they're lying. Or:
2. They were there to intimidate the man into letting Apple's investigators bother him and look around his apartment when by all rights he could have just closed his door in their faces.

Neither is kosher.

 

[emulator]

Why is Cava 22 pictured in this article? How is it relevant? Stop advertising for them.

There's a world beyond SF where people do not really care about the picture of a bar.

 

[nascimento]

Why wasn't it recorded? Because the police officers wanted some free Mexican food.

CAVA is a spanish sparkling wine not Mexican lol

 

[callme]

Yes but why 3 seperate articles? couldn't at least the earlier one been updated?

I guess when you run your own rumour web site you can decide what goes on.

As you are simply a taker of free information, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.

If you don't like what you read, go somewhere else, that is your choice.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

I guess when you run your own rumour web site you can decide what goes on.

As you are simply a taker of free information, I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.

If you don't like what you read, go somewhere else, that is your choice.

You should live in Iran. Freedom of speech is not welcome there either.

 

[brainzilla]

Well Apple, maybe you should include some sort of strap-hole on you phones like most 20 $ phones have. But right - all those falling phones make a good extra profit, don't they?

 

[donsmith]

Facts were correct, it's the ….

The facts listed in the story were correct as they stood at the time each story was written. It was the included speculation that revealed irresponsibility. You can appear to be smart by proclaiming 'wait until all the facts are in' when you have the convenience of looking back in time but your imaginary wise insight fades when you're asked to declare at what point in the future you'll know that all the facts will be in. All you can do is report on the facts as they stand and stop there. If the police say they have no record of the event, you report they have no record. You don't extrapolate imagined scenarios to fit what is known. That's how religions get started. Just report what you know. Further disappointing is how other media ran with the speculation-packed story and headlined that 'Apple' broke the law in looking for its missing iPhone.

 

[Padraig]

I've got a feeling this story could blow up in a big way yet. Going by what has come out, there's the disturbing possibility that Apple security is hiring members of the SFPD - in a non official capacity - to enforce corporate security.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Apple employees searching someone's home...that is pretty weird. We've come a long way from the "1984" commercial.

We really haven't, the roles are just the reverse.

Apple cultist followers? Check.
Apple secret Police? Check.

Edit: Only question is who the woman with the sledgehammer is. Is she a jailbreaker? Is she Google? Is she Microsoft? Or has she yet to appear?

 

[Bubba Satori]

Say hello to Big Chairman.

"iPolice action is protection. We will protect you from yourselves.
If you are not guilty, you have nothing to fear.
There is nothing wrong with your iApple TV
We are in control of the Vertical.
We are in contol of the horizontal.
Please do not attempt to adjust or jailbreak your iApple TV.
That will be painful for you."

 

[klrobinson999]

Pretty sad if you ask me. Why is the SF police department "assisting" Apple? The proper course would be for Apple to file a complaint and have the authorities then do their job. Are the Bay Area police at Apple's beck and call?
Really?

Government in bed with corporations = fascism.

Sergio Calderón will be owed more than an apology after this. I'm sure Apple can pay him some hush money.

It all smells.

 

[Cybbe]

Let me get this straight. Apple Security calls up old chums from SFPD and ask them to accompany them to an address. They show up, and the police officers flash their badges. The only version of events we have is that Apple Security do not identify themselves as civilians. We can assume the the victim here has a reasonable assumption to believe they are in fact cops. Whilst this is going on, the police starts asking questions about immigration status; thinly veiled threats supported only by their own inherent racism. Apple Security then enters the home of this guy, ransacks it and goes over personal belongings, including a computer, and leaves when no trace of a lost phone is found.

Missing anything here?

 

[klrobinson999]

Let me get this straight. Apple Security calls up old chums from SFPD and ask them to accompany them to an address. They show up, and the police officers flash their badges. The only version of events we have is that Apple Security do not identify themselves as civilians. We can assume the the victim here has a reasonable assumption to believe they are in fact cops. Whilst this is going on, the police starts asking questions about immigration status; thinly veiled threats supported only by their own inherent racism. Apple Security then enters the home of this guy, ransacks it and goes over personal belongings, including a computer, and leaves when no trace of a lost phone is found.

Missing anything here?

All correct, from what I'm reading. Also, a supposed cop gives the guy his contact information. Except the guy is not a cop, it's Anthony Colon, a senior investigator for Apple. After SF Weekly exposes him, Colon begins deleting details about himself off the Internet. Further, only after being badgered by the press does the SF Police Department admit to being involved.

 

[peterdevries]

Government in bed with corporations = fascism.

It all smells.

The thing that smells the most here is your definition of fascism.