Apple Asked for Probe into Stolen iPhone

[Guest]

jecastej

yes he should probably have handed it into to the bartender, but then again when your drunk i think your mental faculty goes first, whether right or wrong he decided to try and contact Mr Powell himself when he was rested (well according to the many inaccurate accounts running around the internet) and yes he probably used pretty feeble methods of trying to return the thing

as for apple having nothing to do with the law, your right, but then again do you think there would even be a case had gizmodo simply wrote that they were in possession of an interesting apple phone without posting any pictures, would the police still have kicked down Mr Chen's door the police generally speaking do not go around kicking down doors of people who are suspected of having a stolen cell phone in their possession

i standby my assertion had no pictures surfaced i think this would probably been a very pedestrian affair...

lets say the guy who found the phone actually did manage to contact the correct apple personnel to return the phone too and on the way to returning the phone he allowed Mr Chen to take a few photo's of the device for a small fee, would it be right for the police to then kick down Mr Chen's door and cart off his computer equipment ???

i still think this is apple venting their frustration

 

[husker]

After reading these informed and rather lengthy posts I'm left with one thought... "Probe." Heh, heh, heh

 

[zachary k]

[citation][nom]joeflo97[/nom]not leaked...stolen, sold, and tampered with. If someone steals my property,, i'd ask for a probe at minimum.[/citation]
it was not stolen, the guy left it at a bar. if i lost something, i would ask for it back, i would not think it was stolen. apple lost their phone, and he gave it back. but they are still ticked off! journalist or not, i think he had every right to keep that phone, and make a youtube of it getting blended up.

 

[nottheking]

I do recognize that I am merely an "observer" to this case, like everyone else, but I have enough familiarity with the laws involved in the case that I can make some correct observations. Likewise, many parts of this case are so simple, that anyone with proper understanding of the law can all correctly figure out the meaning of the law involved. It's what many lawyers call an "open and shut case."

In this case, the "open and shut" part is the fact that the phone wasn't stolen; my prior posts have very thoroughly explained, documented, and linked why this is the case. If the court is held fairly, and is not corrupted, it will be impossible for them to find otherwise.

The part that intrigues me, though, are the less-clear parts. Namely, what happens when Chen is inevitably proven fully innocent of any wrongdoing. Likewise, the warrant used to destroy his livelyhood by damaging his home and siezing his property will have been shown to be invalid. So this begs a few interesting questions:

- What trouble will the District Attorney's office be for pushing an invalid investigation?
- What trouble will the Judge be in for signing an invalid warrant?
- What trouble will Apple be in for (apparently) issuing a false (lying) statement to the authorities?

Apple had claimed that the phone was stolen. Under the laws of the State of California, the phone wasn't stolen. Hence, this statement could turn out to be a felony, leaving Apple in every bit of trouble they'd hoped to leave Chen in. Similarly, the actions of the DA, police, and judge could likewise have been illegal, depending on the extent allowed for warrants.

What happens, I'm not sure. THOSE are the actual questions we'll have to "wait and see" what the courts decide. Particularly the one regarding speculative warrant-issuing. I honestly haven't seen any case quite like it, and it's possible that would mean it'd be something for the SCOTUS to decide.

[citation][nom]hop[/nom]Who in the world would take a top secret prototype out of the office? And second, it's not worth the time or money to mess with Apple. Should have been smart to just contact someone at Apple, meet somewhere secretly, and return the thing for a reward. Apple will be happy, and your life is freed from the legal ramifications.[/citation]
If you read my post, you'd know that this is exactly what the finder tried to do. They made, as California law dictated to them, every reasonable and just attempt to return it to the original owner. (i.e, Apple) However, with the phone bricked, (preventing any actual information gathering from it) and an official Apple representative directly telling them tht it wasn't theirs, and instead a knock-off, they had literally run out of options. By California law, because Apple (however mistakenly) denied their ownership of it, the finder rightfuly came to own it.

It was his to do what he wanted; in that case he jumped at the chance when Gizmodo waved $5,000US under his nose. And again, because of law, Jason Chen then became the phone's LAWFUL owner. It was his; he was legally allowed to do what he wished with it. Chen even erred on the side of caution; I don't even think California law actually obligated him to return a phone that had rightfuly become his, but he returned it anyway. So looking at what Chen did, he did everything right.

And yet he still had his home raided, and stuff stolen. So much for the protection of the law! It's always a sad day when the media gleefuly reports of a big, multinational corporation's wealth trumping somebody's rights under the law.

[citation][nom]scott_madison1[/nom]My question is that if it is really THIS sensitive, why was it allowed to leave the building?[/citation]
Actually, it's common practice for Apple's engineers to take out their prototype hardware on "test runs." It's the only reasonable way to get "real-world" test experience with the products. So of course, a case where one got LOST was bound to happen.

[citation][nom]jecastej[/nom]The law ask you explicitly to recognize that you may find something and that it doesn't make it yours. So how could you end up selling it for a high price. The iPhone had an owner Apple or not Apple. So the guy who sold the phone is responsible from braking this law.[/citation]
If you read my post as well (as well as the things I linked) you'd know how this all came to be: Apple legally relinquished ownership of it. That is to say, Apple made the finder the legal owner of the phone. It was then his to use, sell, or otherwise dispose of as he saw fit. So he didn't break the law at all when he decided to sell it; it was his. So yes, it had an owner: the guy who found it.

[citation][nom]jecastej[/nom]Even if this phone was not stolen. If you don't want to get into trouble give the phone to the police[/citation]
Er, not quite. That's the sort of thinking of someone who cowers in fear because they live in a freedom-less police state. That's not the United States of America there. We happen to have something commonly known as the "Fourth Amendment" which is designed explicitly to protect Citizens against things like this. It's why police and other law enforcement agencies require a warrant to search homes and sieze property without the consent of the owner. There WAS a warrant in this case, though because, after I realized the warrant only worked on the assumption that the phone had already been established as "stolen," (an establishment which I've pointed out will be impossible to make in a court of law) the warrant is/was invalid.

[citation][nom]jobcontrol2[/nom]i still think this is apple venting their frustration[/citation]
Not quite "venting their frustration," so much as trying to make an example out of Mr. Chen. I.e, "This is what happens to those that go against the word of Steve Jobs." It's VERY much how organized criminal groups (mobs, gangs, The Mafia, etc.) work: public peace, safety, and the law are all secondary to making sure everyone else knows that YOU are the on in control.

 

[nottheking]

One of these days, I hope Tom's Guide finally adds the ability to edit your comments like you can on Tom's hardware... Until then, I have to make repeated posts.[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]Only in the title is the word "stolen" mentioned. Apple has not stated that the phone was stolen, yet the majority of posts here are erroneously assuming such.[/citation]
Well, I'd recommend reading a bit more about the subject; I know that's a bit much to ask of Toms' readers, but in this case, The search warrant used to raid Chen's home refers to the phone as "stolen". (specifically, look at Apprendix B-4)

And likewise, reading the warrant, the only justification given is that the iPhone was labeled as "stolen." The top refers to nameless felonies, but the only potential felony mentioned anywhere in it would be "Grand theft." I.e, the larceny of the iPhone. (California Penal Code, S487 notes that any larceny of $400US value or more constitutes the felony of 'grand theft' instead of the misdemeanor of 'petty theft')

As the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation," the warrant cannot be valid without asserting a crime. And the 'crime' that was fabricated to back it up was the claim that the iPhone was stolen.

So, in fact, the Chief Deputy DA, Steve Wagstaffe, actually lied to the media when claiming, "We’re still not saying it’s a crime," as according to the Fourth Amendment, they legally weren't allowed to get a warrant without the "probable cause" of a crime. And 'a crime' the warrant did, in fact state.

This honestly is getting suspicious here, what with how much the DA's office is skirting the law here. Of course, it could just be the profile of the case; I'm sure DAs across the country might do similar things toward the 'little guy' all the time.

 

[fracture]

Apple just needs to say it's their fault and drop everything. Freakn noobs.

 

[eddieroolz]

Kinda obvious that Apple pushed for an investigation.