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.
Topics
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 as part of a criminal probe into an errant iPhone prototype.
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.
Talkback Most Recent of 18 Talkback(s)
-
ye28th Apr 2010 -
Loverock Davidson28th Apr 2010 -
uh, can we say trafficking in stolen merchandise here? since when is a
person's house a "newsroom".
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.
.
wessonjoe28th Apr 2010 -
It wasn't STOLEN!!
#1. It was found after an apple employee left it in a bar!
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.
Scubajrr28th Apr 2010 -
It was STOLEN!!!
The minute the two parties colluded to exchange money for an item they knew to belong to another party, theft was committed--it doesn't matter that Gizmodo's 'intention' (if you believe anything those jokers have published, you are a mug!) to return the handset or not, the minute money changed hands a felony was committed. No ifs, no buts.
webmaster@...29th Apr 2010 -
Even if it was....
The First Amendment still applies and the warrant was issued incorrectly and possibly illegally.
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.
Tholian_5329th Apr 2010 -
Garbage!!!
So how has the first amendment been infringed upon? What precedents are you and the EFF basing this assumption on? What qualifies you tro make these assumptions. Do you have information pertaining to as state appointed judge and other law enforcement agents wilfully defrauding the State of California? If you do, you must divulge this information, with evidence, at your nearest police station. Doing so could implicate you in the aiding and abetting of a felony. Otherwise STFU!webmaster@...29th Apr 2010 -
So, kicking down a door in search of a cell phone...
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.
ashdude29th Apr 2010 -
I beg to differ, California law requires a "good faith effort" to...
California requires a "good faith effort" to return the item. The guy who found it called apple twice (Apple acknowledges this) to attempt to return it and was hugn up on. Sounds like an effort to me. Additionally, Apple didn't report the item as stolen until nearly a month after it went missing. Once gizmodo published is when apple decided it was stolen. When apple send a request for the item back, gizmodo returned it without problem.
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.Scubajrr29th Apr 2010 -
You can beg to differ all you like!
The first course of action should have been to notify the bar, either that or hand in the device to the nearest police station. The thief actually knew who 'owned' the device, Gizmodo admitted they knew who this was, they even published his name. They made NO reasonable attempt to return the device at all, in fact Apple had to ask them for it back. In the time it took to return the device, Gizmodo wilfully partook in criminal damage to the device too!
Calling Applecare does not constitute a reasonable attempt to contact the owner 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!!!webmaster@...29th Apr 2010 -
But none of that gives the police an excuse to violate the Constitution.
The only time the police can raid the press is in
the interest of National Security or in search of
kiddie porn. If Gizmodo falls into either of those category's, then they're screwed.ashdude29th Apr 2010 -
This isn't unconstitutional
They had a warrant, therefore, it was warranted search and seizure. The worst it constitutes is a violation of due process, which is still pretty bad.
Tea.Rollins2nd May 2010 -
Nope (no finders keepers, sorry)
@Scubajrr
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)
evilduckster@...6th May 2010 -
And tha's why California is bankrupt
This entire episode is so frivolous that for a state that is in such dire financial straits that it is closing down their school system and letting prisoners out of jail really calls for a taxpayers revolt. Whatever happened in that bar the only secret that is coming out of tha Iphone is that anyone who buys it has been drinking too much apple hard cider. Someone neeed to give jobs a hand he seems delusional.
primartcloud28th Apr 2010 -
Other than fixing the front door, if the warrant was flaky or bogus...
...any incriminating evidence gathered during said search is generally deemed irrelevant and inadmissible in court...in Qannadda, anyways
Feldwebel Wolfenstool28th Apr 2010
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
