Cops raid Gizmodo editor's home over lost iPhone, raise questions of legal search upon journalist
Summary: Police raid the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen as part of the investigation over a lost iPhone prototype but may have violated the First Amendment rights of an online journalist in the process.
Police raided the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen late Friday, busting down the door to serve a search warrant that suggests that the site's role in obtaining an iPhone prototype is being investigated as a felony, according to a post and documents published on the Gizmodo website.
The search, which reeks of violating journalists' protections against such warrants, involved the seizure of four computers and two servers, among other things, from Chen's home, which doubles as his workplace.
The warrant was approved by a judge in San Mateo County, home of the bar where Apple software engineer Gray Powell lost a prototype of Apple's yet-to-be-revealed next iPhone. Cupertino, which is home to Apple HQ, is in neighboring Santa Clara County. Chen lives in Alameda County, which is just across the bay from San Mateo County.
The warrant alleges that the property seized was "used as the means of committing a felony" and "tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony." In addition, in a description of property to be seized, the warrants reads:
All records and data located and/or stored on any computers, hard drives, or memory storage devices, located at the listed location including digital photographs and/or video of the Apple prototype 4G iPhone, email communications pertaining to the sale of photographs of the prototype phone and/or the sale of the physical prototype 4G Apple iPhone, internet history, cache files, and/or Internet pages pertaining to searches and/or research conducted on Apple employee Gray Powell, call records, contact lists, text messages related to the sale of photographs of the prototype iPhone and/or physical prototype iPhone and indicia that identifies the owner and/or operators of the computer or electronic device.
But hold on just one second there.
Chen is a journalist - and that immediately puts the validity of the warrant into murky waters. In the legal response to the warrant issued by Gawker, the parent company of Gizmodo, the company is calling for immediate return of the items seized, saying that they fall into the protections granted to journalists.
In countless legal cases, law enforcement officials and courts have tried to get journalists to reveal their sources in the name of justice - even going so far as to jail them for failing to comply with court orders. The very idea that law enforcement officials would break down the door of a journalist to obtain information about a protected source goes against the heart of the First Amendment and protections granted to members of the press.
It's also worth noting that the search, conducted in the evening hours, was conducted with a warrant did not approve a "Night Search."
Clearly, Apple's lawyers are a powerful force in the San Francisco Bay Area and someone - obviously other than Gray Powell - needs to pay for revealing Apple's forthcoming update to the iPhone. But there are processes and procedures in the judicial system and law enforcement officials should not be allowed to break into an editor's home while he's at dinner with his wife in order to seize property that would spit in the face of such protections.
What's especially troubling is that the judge who signed the search warrant failed to recognize that Chen is an established journalist and protected under the law. Law enforcement officials need to keep their hands off of the communications and files protected under Chen's First Amendment rights and return these computers and servers immediately.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Apple has gone too far - And judges once again prove they have no clue..
G'luck with that, Jobs....
What?
iPad knock-offs being sold in China. How'd you like it if someone stole
your prototype tech & used it to make millions/billions while you sat on
the side with nothing?
They didn't break into Apple for it
So what do you think? If Apple left it there on the bar stool, then its found by someone who maybe returns it to Apple, what should Apple do next? Should the guy be [i][b]forced[/b][/i] to sign a non disclosure document stating he'll be sued out of existence should he leek what he discovered? And what if he doesn't want to, what should Apple do next?
They paid $5000 for goods that...
what propety was stolen
It WAS stolen.
Exactly... and Journalist are not protected from breaking laws themselves..
Bar...
And a journalist is not protected for a felony
they themselves commit...
This has nothing to do with a journalist
revealing sources... If a source leaked the
video and images to gizmodo, and gizmodo
reported the story, then gizmodo only reported
the story and didn't commit the crime. Granted
the reporter could be forced to reveal the
source or rot in jail for contempt, but that's
something entirely different.
Yes, it was!
@portable
@rtk
@athynz
Industrial espionage, without any espionage.
Look deeper
2. The act of leaving it on the seat put its appearance into the public domain.
3. If Gizmodo paid money to recover stolen property which it promptly returned to Apple once requested, then that's no crime. If they had attempted to conceal the fact, it would have been. What thief posts his theft on the web? Only a remarkably foolish one.
4. Where in US Law does finding become stealing? In UK Law, there is stealing-by-finding, but even then there has to be evidence of deliberation in not returning the goods, which is not the case here - otherwise anyone finding something in tyhe street would be exposed while taking it to the cops, the normal procedure for lost property.
5. Moreover, the warrant was incorrectly served, and the cops did not find the property sought because it had already been returned. Instead, they went on an unwarranted trawl as a punitive measure in a commercial dispute- it would eb really interesting to see what the warrant actually said, it must be accessible under Freedom of Information. It's for the Courts to decide punishment, in any case, not the Police.
Jelmin is right...
I'm sure the dunderhead that left it, knew Chen was a reporter. Who in their right mind sets a cellphone on a bar stool? The idiot would have to be drunk, and should have been the one prosecuted, not Chen.
I could see naming Chen and Gizmodo in a suit for damages with intellectual knowledge pre-exposed to the market in a way that damages the corporation, but that is it.
This just makes them look like the typical greedy power mad corporate stooges, we are all tired of, and unfortunately used to, as well.
Receiving Stolen Property -- California Penal Code 496 PC
apple needs to be more careful
You must have missed my post above
criminal case
goods, a criminal case. but aside from that why shouldn't they go after
that? you think they should let people steal their property and benefit
from it?
i understand that you hate apple, but sometimes it gets really irrational
here on zdnet. who is the bad guy here. the thief and the concealer or
the owner?
Stolen? Not Likely
Next: offer the "joke" to Gizmodo for a small sum. Who knows... maybe it is real....
Read it any way you like...
So says a man attempting to escape criminal charges.
Also, hearsay
"finder", and letting the "finder" tell the investigators himself.