Gizmodo considers suing police after iPhone raid
Summary: A lawyer for Gizmodo says the gadget blog could sue the sheriff's office in San Mateo County, Calif., for raiding an editor's home last Friday.
The option of a lawsuit "is available because search is not the appropriate method in this situation," Thomas R. Burke, a media lawyer and partner in the San Francisco offices of Davis Wright Tremaine, told CNET. He said the search warrant violated a California journalist shield law designed to limit searches of newsrooms.
Burke added, however, that he has been in discussions with the San Mateo County district attorney's office and that he appreciated prosecutors' agreement not to search editor Jason Chen's seized computers, iPad, and iPhone while talks are in progress.
Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker Media, has said that the search warrant is "invalid," citing a California law curbing newsroom searches. So has the Electronic Frontier Foundation. On the other hand, if the Gizmodo employees who paid $5,000 for what they believed was a 4G prototype are targets of a criminal probe, it's likely that the law's protections do not apply and a civil lawsuit would be unsuccessful. But if Gizmodo is not suspected of violating the law, they would have a good case against the county, legal experts said.
For more on this story, read Gizmodo considers suing police after iPhone raid on CNET News.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Good luck with that. nt
That was my thought too. (NT)
uh, can we say trafficking in stolen merchandise here? since when is a
if this was a witch-hunt intimidation tactic i would agree with the lawsuit.
but if it is a valid avenue of investigation, get a clue dude!
you break the law, you need to pay.
you paid $5000 to be a party to theft.
live with the consequences.
:)
.
It wasn't STOLEN!!
http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone
#2. The person who found it made a reasonable effort to return it. He called apple to return it and apple blew him off.
http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back?skyline=true&s=i
#3. It was sold to Gizmodo as a possible prototype.
http://gizmodo.com/5520729/why-apple-couldnt-get-the-lost-iphone-back?skyline=true&s=i
#4. When Gizmodo published and the apple legal dept sent a letter asking for the phone back Gizmodo was happy to return it. It served as confirmation that the device was genuine.
http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-iphone-back
At best, the only crime that could be considered to have been commited here might be apple filing a false police report.
At worst you could find that apple legal department used the San Mateo police dept as a subcontracted devision of the apple gestapo.
Either way, Gizmodo is protected by both federal and state 1st ammendment statutes.
It [i]was[/i] STOLEN!!!
Even if it was....
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-editor-chen-entitled-to-first-amendment-respect
Apple Almighty and its new stooges very likely overstepped themselves and broke the law.
Garbage!!!
So, kicking down a door in search of a cell phone...
doesn't seem excessive to you? Not to mention that
it was kicked down after the cell phone was
returned to Apple.
I beg to differ, California law requires a "good faith effort" to...
The truly disconcerting thing here is the threat to journalistic independence and protections from intimidation. If this warrent stands then the next time a corrupt politician decides he doesn't like the story being written about him he's just that much more likely to use police intimidation to squash the story.
You can beg to differ all you like!
Calling Applecare [b]does not constitute a reasonable attempt to contact the owner[/b] in any sense, no matter how many times they did it! The bar is only a 20 minute drive from Apple's campus! If the perpetrator really wanted to return it, he could have. Thinking otherwise is naive at best!!!
But none of that gives the police an excuse to violate the Constitution.
the interest of National Security or in search of
kiddie porn. If Gizmodo falls into either of those category's, then they're screwed.
This isn't unconstitutional
Nope (no finders keepers, sorry)
1. He took it, and he knew it belonged to Apple
2. He could have put in the mail, but didn't
3. He could have walked into ANY Apple store, but didn't
4. He could have given it to the lost-and-found at the bar, but didnt
(Fact: Unless your four years old, "finders-keepers" doesnt apply)
4. He didn't buy the device, and it didn't belong to him, BUT He shopped the phone and sold it AS A PRE RELEASE device (aka, a device not legally for sale)
And tha's why California is bankrupt
Other than fixing the front door, if the warrant was flaky or bogus...
RE: Gizmodo considers suing police after iPhone raid
makes the finder guilty of theft.
Then Gizmodo paid for the stolen goods, thus being a
Reciever, they then vandalised the phone and took it apart.
Next time you leve something in a shop, you better hope
someone honest finds it first 8)
Finding property left unattended does not make it yours to
nick.
By the letter of the law...
constitutes exchange of stolen property. It is the
responsibility of the finder to make a reasonable
attempt to contact the owner, and by the letter if
they transfer possession to anyone else they are
committing theft.
Even if it was...
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-editor-chen-entitled-to-first-amendment-respect
Apple Almighty and its new stooges very likely overstepped themselves and broke the law.