Police investigating lost iPhone prototype raid Gizmodo editor's home
By Nilay Patel 
posted April 26th 2010 5:23PM
posted April 26th 2010 5:23PM
Update: TechCrunch reports that the investigation is on hold for now following claims by Gawker that Chen should be protected under California's Shield Laws, meant to help protect journalists from revealing sources. The District Attorney will reportedly reevaluate whether those laws do apply, and as such will not go through the seized possessions until a decision's been reached in the coming days.
@MichaelSF CA police can and do execute search warrants when there is no-one present at the location - I've seen it happen.
CA police do break down doors to gain access to a location if they have a warrant and no-one is present - I've seen it happen.
CA police do spend hours searching those premises without anyone being present, collecting evidence - I've seen it happen.
So not sure why you're coming up with the statements that you are, but I can personally attest to the fact that CA law and CA law enforcement use the above tactics when executing search warrants.
And no we're not talking about drugs or guns either!
@SExpress I apologize, I wrote an unclear comment.
My examples were in the context of the police and DA saying that they are not aware if Chen, or anyone, had committed a crime and they were searching the residence/office as part of an INVESTIGATION.
From what I can see in the warrant, couples with the statements by the police and DA, they did NOT have probable cause to even obtain the warrant, much less execute it (use it to search the premises).
I duly note that when the police KNOW a SERIOUS crime has been committed and they need to search a residence or office for evidence in relation to that crime, then of course a search warrant and search is lawful.
My examples relate to situations like Mr. Chen's where the police do NOT know BEFOREHAND if anyone has committed a crime and when executing the warrant (searching) they do NOT know if the person on the premises has committed a crime (whether office tenant or home owner).
Put another way, in Chen's situation the police and DA appear to have been on a fishing expedition. This is police conduct contrary to what I understand the law to be.
Moreover, I have not heard about or read a warrant that is as vague as the one issued on Chen, to simply say a felony may have been committed.
I have understood warrants being difficult to obtain because the police are violating one's privacy rights and the courts are concerned about searches being unreasonable and in violation of the state and federal Constitutions. So to get a warrant the police have to spell out probable cause.
In this situation it did not seem the police had any evidence or facts whatsoever to justify breaking a citizen/journalist's door down , searching and confiscating what they did. (Which brings to mind, why did the police take the man's business cards? What has that got to do with anything. To me that further evidences abuse of police powers and indicates just how much of a fishing expedition this was).
Again, AFAIK search warrants cannot be used for fishing expeditions. It appears to me that the DA and police sniffing around to see if they might find anything of interest.
OK gotta try this. THOUSANDTH POST!!
I know it was at something like 996 when last I looked. Hey there are always the first post tards. How often do you get the 1,000th post!
I guess I need to read up on why this is being called "stolen" property. If I lose something and someone finds it, no one "stole" it from me. (No need to respond - I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere in the 1000 comments that I'm not going to be paging through today...)
This just in, 6:00 pm PDT, April 27:
"The criminal investigation into the purported theft of an apparent iPhone prototype came at the request of Apple Inc., officials said Tuesday.
Investigators said they have identified and interviewed the person who took the phone from the Gourmet Haus Staudt on March 18 after it was left there by Apple engineer Gray Powell following a birthday celebration.
Officials were unable to say whether that person, whose name has not been released, was the same person who eventually sold the phone to tech Web site Gizmodo.com. Police raided the home of one of Gizmodo's editors Friday night, seizing electronic equipment and triggering legal and ethical debates across the Web.
So far, nobody has been charged with a crime.
“We’re still not saying it’s a crime,” said San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.”
Some interesting things in this story:
1. The person who "took the phone" was not arrested.
2. Confirms it was Apple who sent the police over to Chen's office to conduct the raid.
3. The DA is not saying a crime has been committed. Oh really, then that bolsters my questioning why the warrant was issued by the judge and why the police raided the office and seized his printing presses, so to speak.
I still says some heads at Apple are going to roll on this one. And maybe even the DA's office for being in bed with Apple on this. Maybe Jobs will get arrested if he gave the order to the police.
Of course Apple and Jobs don't care. They simply wanted to send a message to anyone else who might think about angering Apple. I suspect this will have a chilling affect on the media covering Apple stories. Say the wrong thing or in the wrong way, expect a lawsuit or as Gizmodo found out, the police at your door.
I see the California Attorney General investigating the San Mateo County DA's office and also the Judge who issued warrant.
Good God, did the Judge ask any questions before signing the warrant? What country do we live in where a private company can have the police break down doors and take the media's "printing presses."
In the warrant as posted by Gizmodo, in appendix "B" sections 3 and 4, it clearly states that they were ordered to seize his servers and computers because of the fear that Chen had iPhone trade secrets on them, which i'm gonna guess they did, since he had purchased the phone that clearly did not belong to him.
Yes sections 3 and 4 of appendix "B" clearly shows that Apple is behind this, but honestly, WHO CARES!!!!! Gawker Media deserves everything that is coming towards them they had no right to make such sensitive information public.
They sure do act like they love Apple over there, but if they really loved Apple, they wouldn't have ruined that poor devs career and leak the internal components of the phone.
@roflkewl
Oh, My stockholm syndrome in progress...
Anyone want to venture a guess on who at Apple sicked the police on Chen? I suspect this went to the highest levels at Apple and he gave a green light to the underlings getting the police involved.
Just guessing, but I can't imagine Steve Jobs in the background calming everyone down. He strikes me as the type who went ballistic over this.
And something this serious a breach of security and the publicity that a police raid would garner, seems that only Jobs could authorize his employees to contact the PD, IMHO.
Concerning the police raid ad seizure at Jason Chen's home:
I'd just like to know what proof is there that the new iPhone that Gizmodo's Chen revealed was stolen?
Did the Apple engineer who is acknowledged to have last had the prototype in a german beerhouse report a theft at the time, or is this mean-spirited 'payback' by Apple for being outed.
As of right now, to me, this is starting to smell like the same tactics Dick Cheney used— outing CIA operative Valarie Plame to get back at her husband Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson for discrediting some of the claims the White House concocted to justify invading Iraq.
If Chen is complicit in a crime, so be it. But if Apple IS using the police for revenge on Chen, I would hope they suffer the full legal consequences despite how much I like their products.
gawker got warning from apple before: http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2010/01/appleletter2_01.jpg
I'm sorry but people are kind of over reacting it's a PHONE. A phone was that was irresponsibly lost. Yeah the guy is a huge douche and is deff in the wrong but yeah the phone is stolen since they kind if knew who it belonged to and didn't return it so slap some fines on him and the site and leave it to apple to sue the hell out of them but this is kind of crazy. I am pretty sure Apple has some say in this going so far, they are a multimillion dollar company they are not up going to be front about it though; but they do have to cover their asses for losing the phone just like that and show who's boss. I am pretty sure if other gadget sites etc was approached they probably would of took the bate too maybe not blab that it's stolen and be a doche like this rere and I know especially crazy fanboys would be all over this too. It's not like gadget sites etc don't always try to be the 1st to get their hand on things seeking out prototypes etc this person kind of pushed it a little farther, it's not like he broke into somewhere to get it then it would be another story( I am a mac I just don't sell my soul to companies)
@jrock26 prototype phone is worth much more than "a phone"
He's an idiot, should had make apple sign aggrement before hand them back that iphone.
you gotta wonder though.....Would Engadget have done "exactly" the same if given gizmodo's situation?...hmmm
just heard it slip out it was a woman who found the phone
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes