Six computers and other items seized by task force from San Mateo police - in a case that could turn into a test of whether bloggers can claim journalistic exemptions.
California police have taken six computers and other items from the house of Jason Chen, the editor of the gadget blog Gizmodo who appeared on a video on the site showing off a lost Apple iPhone prototype which, it transpired, had been bought from a middleman for about $5,000.
The search was carried out last Friday evening, but Gizmodo only revealed that it had happened on Monday evening. Chen was not present when the police entered the house.
The police seizure, which would have been the decision under the criminal code of California of the district attorney for San Mateo - and not Apple - may turn into a test of the US "shield law" for journalists, which allows them to protect their sources. The New York Times reported last Saturday that "charges would most likely be filed against the person or people who sold the prototype iPhone, and possibly the buyer."
The lost iPhone was a prototype of the new model that Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs is expected to announce this June, sporting a higher-definition screen and ceramic casing.
Chen appeared in a video on Gizmodo last week showing off the so-called "iPhone 4G" - which, it transpired, had been lost by an Apple employee called Gray Powell when he visited a bar in Redwood, about 19 miles from Apple's headquarters. The phone was lost on March 18 - but did not turn up in Gizmodo's hands until earlier this month, suggesting that the person who took it away from the bar (who has apparently insisted to Gizmodo that they called Apple to return the phone) did not making great efforts to return it. Nick Denton, the former FT journalist who is now chief executive of Gawker Media, which owns and runs Gizmodo, has said that the phone was acquired for money - at a rumoured $5,000.
But Gizmodo's actions in paying for the phone and not returning it at once to Apple may have infringed California's civil and criminal code by receiving stolen goods. And if there is a suspicion that the phone was stolen from Powell, and especially if it was sold rather than returned to Apple, that would implicate both Chen and the person who took the phone from the bar under the code.
The warrant for the search was issued on the basis that Chen's apartment "was used as a means of committing a felony".
Denton has written to the San Mateo police department protesting that the confiscation breaks the so-called "shield law". The warrant, which Gizmodo has reproduced, also states that "night searches" are not allowed - but Denton says that Chen consented to the warrant at 9.45pm on 23 April (the warrant having been authorised at 7pm), which makes the warrant invalid.
The New York Times reported that
Apple has remained almost silent throughout the affair. Though Powell is reported to have made strenuous efforts to find the phone, contacting the bar where he last had it repeatedly in the weeks after it went missing, the company itself has barely acknowledged the hullabaloo. The only sign that the prototype indeed belonged to the company came in a letter to Gizmodo last week in which it said that the site had "a device which belongs to Apple" and adding "Please let us know where to pick up the unit."
Business Insider produced a gallery of the items taken from the house - though they're not the actual items. Those are still with the police.
The search was carried out last Friday evening, but Gizmodo only revealed that it had happened on Monday evening. Chen was not present when the police entered the house.
The police seizure, which would have been the decision under the criminal code of California of the district attorney for San Mateo - and not Apple - may turn into a test of the US "shield law" for journalists, which allows them to protect their sources. The New York Times reported last Saturday that "charges would most likely be filed against the person or people who sold the prototype iPhone, and possibly the buyer."
The lost iPhone was a prototype of the new model that Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs is expected to announce this June, sporting a higher-definition screen and ceramic casing.
Chen appeared in a video on Gizmodo last week showing off the so-called "iPhone 4G" - which, it transpired, had been lost by an Apple employee called Gray Powell when he visited a bar in Redwood, about 19 miles from Apple's headquarters. The phone was lost on March 18 - but did not turn up in Gizmodo's hands until earlier this month, suggesting that the person who took it away from the bar (who has apparently insisted to Gizmodo that they called Apple to return the phone) did not making great efforts to return it. Nick Denton, the former FT journalist who is now chief executive of Gawker Media, which owns and runs Gizmodo, has said that the phone was acquired for money - at a rumoured $5,000.
But Gizmodo's actions in paying for the phone and not returning it at once to Apple may have infringed California's civil and criminal code by receiving stolen goods. And if there is a suspicion that the phone was stolen from Powell, and especially if it was sold rather than returned to Apple, that would implicate both Chen and the person who took the phone from the bar under the code.
The warrant for the search was issued on the basis that Chen's apartment "was used as a means of committing a felony".
Denton has written to the San Mateo police department protesting that the confiscation breaks the so-called "shield law". The warrant, which Gizmodo has reproduced, also states that "night searches" are not allowed - but Denton says that Chen consented to the warrant at 9.45pm on 23 April (the warrant having been authorised at 7pm), which makes the warrant invalid.
The New York Times reported that
""California law prohibits the sale of stolen goods and states that a person who uses someone else's lost property without permission may be guilty of theft. Stephen Wagstaffe [San Mateo County's chief deputy district attorney] said in cases like this it might not necessarily be a matter of lost versus stolen. In some instances of missing property, he said, "we call it misappropriation of lost property; it's a crime but it's not theft." He added that "knowledge is a very important factor in a theft case.""The police officer who led the search is a specialist in computer forensics, but it is not clear whether the computers will be searched for information about the identity of the person who sold the prototype to Chen.
Apple has remained almost silent throughout the affair. Though Powell is reported to have made strenuous efforts to find the phone, contacting the bar where he last had it repeatedly in the weeks after it went missing, the company itself has barely acknowledged the hullabaloo. The only sign that the prototype indeed belonged to the company came in a letter to Gizmodo last week in which it said that the site had "a device which belongs to Apple" and adding "Please let us know where to pick up the unit."
Business Insider produced a gallery of the items taken from the house - though they're not the actual items. Those are still with the police.
No comments:
Post a Comment