Police Assisted Apple Investigators in Search of SF Man's Home(blogs.sfweekly.com)
blogs.sfweekly.com
Police Assisted Apple Investigators in Search of SF Man's Home
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_apple_police.php
64 comments
Ask yourself: would 3-4 SFPD officers show up at the door of a suspected bike thief if someone claimed he had stolen a bike worth $500?
Dear H-N readers from SF: you _can_ effect change by contacting your supervisors and asking them to raise questions with SFPD. You don't have to silently sit there watching bad things happen; you have an option, and that is to speak up. Sending an email to your supervisor is a very easy thing to do, and if enough of us band together and raise our voices, the powers-that-be will have to listen.
Dear H-N readers from SF: you _can_ effect change by contacting your supervisors and asking them to raise questions with SFPD. You don't have to silently sit there watching bad things happen; you have an option, and that is to speak up. Sending an email to your supervisor is a very easy thing to do, and if enough of us band together and raise our voices, the powers-that-be will have to listen.
He granted permission for the Apple employees to enter his residence to search. Nothing in the article indicates any civil liberties were violated.
Ask yourself: would an iPhone 5 would get $500 on the open market? More likely it would be worth $100,000 or more. And if someone stole a $100,000 device of mine with a GPS device that was tracked to a residence, I would hope the SFPD would help me. Anything less would be a miscarriage of justice.
Now onto guilt, this person admitted he was at the bar from which the iPhone was allegedly stolen. Now while this might not be enough to convict someone in a court of law, it's certainly enough to investigate further.
I do not understand why this story is getting any traction except the standard internet hatreds for police and corporations.
Ask yourself: would an iPhone 5 would get $500 on the open market? More likely it would be worth $100,000 or more. And if someone stole a $100,000 device of mine with a GPS device that was tracked to a residence, I would hope the SFPD would help me. Anything less would be a miscarriage of justice.
Now onto guilt, this person admitted he was at the bar from which the iPhone was allegedly stolen. Now while this might not be enough to convict someone in a court of law, it's certainly enough to investigate further.
I do not understand why this story is getting any traction except the standard internet hatreds for police and corporations.
The main problem, as I see it, is that he didn't know the two men who searched their home were not police officers. Worse, the cops allowed the man to have the impression that they were. And the fact that the cops themselves didn't go inside shows me that they knew what they were doing was questionable.
"And the fact that the cops themselves didn't go inside shows me that they knew what they were doing was questionable."
EXACTLY! Have you ever, ever known the cops to back off from doing something, and let a civilian handle it? In my few observations of such situations, I've always seen the cops take charge, and shoo the civilians away. For them to just stand at the boundary line and watch the Apple goons go in and search, to me, is clear evidence that the cops knew fully well what they were doing.
EXACTLY! Have you ever, ever known the cops to back off from doing something, and let a civilian handle it? In my few observations of such situations, I've always seen the cops take charge, and shoo the civilians away. For them to just stand at the boundary line and watch the Apple goons go in and search, to me, is clear evidence that the cops knew fully well what they were doing.
He granted what he assumed were the SFPD to enter his house.
And just because he doesn't know the law, it does NOT mean that it doesn't apply to him. The laws still apply. The cops knew that they had absolutely no evidence or reason to search his house; which is why they wisely stayed outside. But they also knew that they had created a false impression that the Apple goons were also SFPD, which allowed them to enter the guy's house.
As far as the value is concerned: so what? If I put a value of $1000000 on my Bic pen, does that mean I'm allowed to break the laws in finding out who took it?? If it really was that valuable, then what the heck was an Apple employee doing with it getting drunk in a sleazy bar? Will the Apple employee be docked $100,000 from his paycheck if the phone is not found? Get real!
And just because he doesn't know the law, it does NOT mean that it doesn't apply to him. The laws still apply. The cops knew that they had absolutely no evidence or reason to search his house; which is why they wisely stayed outside. But they also knew that they had created a false impression that the Apple goons were also SFPD, which allowed them to enter the guy's house.
As far as the value is concerned: so what? If I put a value of $1000000 on my Bic pen, does that mean I'm allowed to break the laws in finding out who took it?? If it really was that valuable, then what the heck was an Apple employee doing with it getting drunk in a sleazy bar? Will the Apple employee be docked $100,000 from his paycheck if the phone is not found? Get real!
He granted SFPD permission, not Apple employees. $100k? That sounds like a stretch. Are you saying the residences of everyone present at the bar that night should be subject to search?
If Sergio Calderón did steal the iPhone5 and if Calderón did give permission for them to search his home and if the Apple employees found it not an San Francisco Police Department officer would that not make the evidence inadmissible since an SFPD officer didn't find it?
Calderón could easily say in court he never had it and the Apple employees planted it there.
Calderón could easily say in court he never had it and the Apple employees planted it there.
"I do not understand why this story is getting any traction except the standard internet hatreds for police and corporations."
I am going to setup a company and then turn up demanding to search your home for my property. See the problem now? That's a scary incursion of your home by a corporation. Tell me you are happy with it especially since the guys you paid with your taxes stand outside waiting for me to complete searching your home.
Now assume that I plant an ounce of some green stuff under the mattress while I am at it. Now what?
I am going to setup a company and then turn up demanding to search your home for my property. See the problem now? That's a scary incursion of your home by a corporation. Tell me you are happy with it especially since the guys you paid with your taxes stand outside waiting for me to complete searching your home.
Now assume that I plant an ounce of some green stuff under the mattress while I am at it. Now what?
I wish I shared you idealism. You're talking about the SFPD - the same SFPD that has gotten away with beatings, illegal arrests, blatant racism and bigotry for decades.
If the mass beating of gays in the Castro and two dozen illegal arrests wasn't able to perturb the SFPD, what makes you think the illegal search of one man's home will?
I get the feeling that in municipal politics the police-city relationship is very similar to the military-government relationship in many banana republics. On paper one answers to the other, but in reality one is so powerful by itself that it is essentially immune to prosecution.
If the mass beating of gays in the Castro and two dozen illegal arrests wasn't able to perturb the SFPD, what makes you think the illegal search of one man's home will?
I get the feeling that in municipal politics the police-city relationship is very similar to the military-government relationship in many banana republics. On paper one answers to the other, but in reality one is so powerful by itself that it is essentially immune to prosecution.
"I wish I shared you idealism. You're talking about the SFPD - the same SFPD that has gotten away with beatings, illegal arrests, blatant racism and bigotry for decades."
I know what you're saying: but that shouldn't stop us from trying!
Look at it this way. If we don't raise questions, then things continue on the trajectory they're on (Newton's Third Law? ;) ). However, if we do raise questions, in sufficient numbers, then we have a chance, however small it may be, to effect change. So why not try to effect change? We have nothing to lose! At the worst, things are no different; in the best case, things get better.
So please! Contact your supe from this page: http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=1616 It'll only take a minute.
I know what you're saying: but that shouldn't stop us from trying!
Look at it this way. If we don't raise questions, then things continue on the trajectory they're on (Newton's Third Law? ;) ). However, if we do raise questions, in sufficient numbers, then we have a chance, however small it may be, to effect change. So why not try to effect change? We have nothing to lose! At the worst, things are no different; in the best case, things get better.
So please! Contact your supe from this page: http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=1616 It'll only take a minute.
For the last time, it was NOT an illegal search. They asked and were given permission to enter and search. Does that need repeating?
Group of people show up in plainsclothes. One knocks on your door and identifies himself as a police officer and alludes threateningly to your family's immigration status. Two of the others ask if they can enter your house. You agree to it (and they find nothing).
Everything in that series of events is incredibly sketchy and falls under the heading "if it isn't illegal, it should be." And if you go by the spirit of the law, the Apple employees should definitely be charged for impersonating police officers, given this narrative of events.
Note that it would still be incredibly goonish even if (a) they made sure the dude understood they were Apple employees and not police officers or (b) everyone involved actually is a police officer. Pure nastiness on the part of Apple and the SFPD.
Everything in that series of events is incredibly sketchy and falls under the heading "if it isn't illegal, it should be." And if you go by the spirit of the law, the Apple employees should definitely be charged for impersonating police officers, given this narrative of events.
Note that it would still be incredibly goonish even if (a) they made sure the dude understood they were Apple employees and not police officers or (b) everyone involved actually is a police officer. Pure nastiness on the part of Apple and the SFPD.
The gave permission for cops to search, not Apple. They knew full well that they were creating the impression that all of them were police officers.
"According to Dangerfield, the officers "did not go inside the house," but stood outside while the Apple employees scoured Calderón's home, car, and computer files"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation
They wouldn't show up for a typical $500 phone, either, as is amply documented by many people's accounts of trying to recover phones that have been precisely located.
But it's extremely disingenuous to say that this is just another phone, it's value is much higher than $500.
But it's extremely disingenuous to say that this is just another phone, it's value is much higher than $500.
[deleted]
iOS 4.3.6: Fixed a bug with Find My iPhone that caused it to randomly show phones as being at Sergio Calderon's house.
What legal issues are there with the Apple employees and not the plainclothes police officers carrying out this search ? Are Apple in the clear here seeing as Calderon agreed to the search ?
Yes, I would think so. Anyone basically has any right to anything you allow.
But this is aggravated by the SFPD's presence. Sounds like things went down like:
1) A group of people show up at his door in plain clothes.
2) Some of them identify as police officers.
3) They ask him about the iPhone 5 and he denies it.
4) They threaten him a bit and then ask him to allow a search of the premises.
5) Since, from his perspective, there are a bunch of police officers threatening the immigration status of his family, he consents.
6) Two people from the group (Apple employees) enter the premises and search for the iPhone. He assumes that they are police because they are all in plain clothes (no way to tell them apart without asking to each each badge).
Seems to me like the police used their muscle to strong-arm the guy, but then stopped short of doing the search themselves (because that would be illegal). Since the guy consented to the search, then there may not be anything illegal about the Apple employees performing the search.
This whole thing stinks:
* Sounds like the ex-police security guy that Apple hired got some of his buddies to use their badges to get him in the door.
* The police performed a search without technically performing a search.
* The Apple security employees impersonated police officers without technically impersonating police officers.
My take:
A bunch of police officers (and an ex-cop) were behaving badly on their off-hours and now the SFPD is going to go into CYA-mode. No charges will be brought. Nothing will happen to anyone. Maybe the Apple security guy will get dressed-down by his superiors for being so heavy-handed and causing bad press.
1) A group of people show up at his door in plain clothes.
2) Some of them identify as police officers.
3) They ask him about the iPhone 5 and he denies it.
4) They threaten him a bit and then ask him to allow a search of the premises.
5) Since, from his perspective, there are a bunch of police officers threatening the immigration status of his family, he consents.
6) Two people from the group (Apple employees) enter the premises and search for the iPhone. He assumes that they are police because they are all in plain clothes (no way to tell them apart without asking to each each badge).
Seems to me like the police used their muscle to strong-arm the guy, but then stopped short of doing the search themselves (because that would be illegal). Since the guy consented to the search, then there may not be anything illegal about the Apple employees performing the search.
This whole thing stinks:
* Sounds like the ex-police security guy that Apple hired got some of his buddies to use their badges to get him in the door.
* The police performed a search without technically performing a search.
* The Apple security employees impersonated police officers without technically impersonating police officers.
My take:
A bunch of police officers (and an ex-cop) were behaving badly on their off-hours and now the SFPD is going to go into CYA-mode. No charges will be brought. Nothing will happen to anyone. Maybe the Apple security guy will get dressed-down by his superiors for being so heavy-handed and causing bad press.
Agreed, it stinks. But I think the real responsibility here lies with the SFPD officers, who deliberately conveyed the false impression that everyone in the group were police. I don't know if there's a law on the books against a police officer representing another person as a police officer, but if not, there damned well should be.
You're right. The cops knew what they were doing was wrong or else they would have entered the home as well.
My take:
KNOW your rights. Nothing stinks here. As one of the videos below states: If police is entitled to a search then they will just break in and do a search. If they ASK for consent, and even more, if they threaten, they KNOW that they are not entitled.
Keep the door shut and don't given up your rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtBvalUVKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RYH8Py6lY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ckcdtQ95w
KNOW your rights. Nothing stinks here. As one of the videos below states: If police is entitled to a search then they will just break in and do a search. If they ASK for consent, and even more, if they threaten, they KNOW that they are not entitled.
Keep the door shut and don't given up your rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XtBvalUVKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RYH8Py6lY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ckcdtQ95w
That's all nice and dandy in a vaccuum, but it discounts the real world where the police will make threats to get what they want. You're argument is like claiming that an RIAA case has no legs to stand on... It sounds nice until you're the one that has to spend a fortune on lawyers to prove that.
Also, you're telling me that /nothing/ here stinks?
How about:
- This was likly an 'off the books' operation until it hit the media. This is why the SFPD spokesperson thought that no police were present.
- This was likely a bunch of officers using their badges to help a friend in their off hours. Now the SFPD is probably feverishly writing up paperwork to make this look legit to cover for the cops in question.
- The cops in question committed what amounts to fraud by implying that the Apple employees were cops.
Don't point out that the guy didn't know his rights and act like that is the only thing wrong with this picture.
Also, you're telling me that /nothing/ here stinks?
How about:
- This was likly an 'off the books' operation until it hit the media. This is why the SFPD spokesperson thought that no police were present.
- This was likely a bunch of officers using their badges to help a friend in their off hours. Now the SFPD is probably feverishly writing up paperwork to make this look legit to cover for the cops in question.
- The cops in question committed what amounts to fraud by implying that the Apple employees were cops.
Don't point out that the guy didn't know his rights and act like that is the only thing wrong with this picture.
No, it's simple "Do you have a warrant?" If the answer is anything other than "yes, here it is." you shut the door.
Going completely off topic, there are, at least in some places, irrevocable rights which cannot be overruled by consent. In the UK, R v Brown[1] "ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm".
I believe there is also law (again, varying by jurisdiction and treaty obligations) to prevent a person from consenting to their own slavery. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_se... seems to cover it briefly, but I can't find a better reference immediately.
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Spa...
I believe there is also law (again, varying by jurisdiction and treaty obligations) to prevent a person from consenting to their own slavery. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_se... seems to cover it briefly, but I can't find a better reference immediately.
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Operation_Spa...
Sigh. I emphasized "basically" precisely to avoid this discussion.
Basically? Saying basically just avoids any real discussion of legal distinctions.
When you said "basically" did you also mean to prevent discussion of duress? False pretenses? Fraud?
When you said "basically" did you also mean to prevent discussion of duress? False pretenses? Fraud?
Oh come off it, calm down a bit.
He said basically IMO because he meant "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".
It's an internet forum not rendition of statute.
He can't say anything that "prevent"s proper discussion on an open internet forum. If you wanted to discuss informed consent, duress or fraud why not just do that.
He said basically IMO because he meant "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".
It's an internet forum not rendition of statute.
He can't say anything that "prevent"s proper discussion on an open internet forum. If you wanted to discuss informed consent, duress or fraud why not just do that.
Thanks. That's exactly what my use of "basically" meant and FFS since this is HN I will be sure to note that in the future. :)
If he wants to make a comment discussing giving away your rights, he should damn well be prepared to discuss it's legality.
Oh please. Use a little common sense next time you post. Anyone who attends, what sixth grade, knows there are some rights you can't give up and my comment was merely an attempt to avoid some tired lengthy discussion of that.
From what we know the "suspect" consented to a search of his apartment. That's the end of at least this part of the story.
From what we know the "suspect" consented to a search of his apartment. That's the end of at least this part of the story.
The general population barely knows what rights they have, let alone what rights they cannot give up. It is an important aspect of the conversation.
I'm not sure I understand what you meant by:
"of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".
I do not understand the "consent to the further subset..." Part. Its not a sentence construction I am familiar with.
"of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".
I do not understand the "consent to the further subset..." Part. Its not a sentence construction I am familiar with.
Sorry that would be my legal training. Perhaps you can attempt to construe the sentence in the spirit it was written (like with badly drafted law ;0), you sound like you're intelligent enough to do that. Commas aren't free you know ...
No worries. I was not trying to be a jerk, I really did not understand how the two parts of the sentences worked together.
>"of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to, the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed" //
http://imgur.com/AK6Cu
http://imgur.com/AK6Cu
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well if they mis-identified themselves as police, that in itself is a crime, whether or not he agreed. Further, if anyone in the DA's office actually cared[1], there would be a decent case for criminal trespass since the guy did not let in Apple employees, but police officers in his mind... further a creative DA could probably even try for fraud if anything was damaged or property was lost since it was under false pretenses.
[1] Nothing will come of this... gotta protect the nice big corporations even if they occasionally get it wrong. That guy was surely a common fellow, pure worthless evil most likely, otherwise Apple would not have suspected him. This is good enough for any DA to ignore the law that might otherwise protect that common trash.
[1] Nothing will come of this... gotta protect the nice big corporations even if they occasionally get it wrong. That guy was surely a common fellow, pure worthless evil most likely, otherwise Apple would not have suspected him. This is good enough for any DA to ignore the law that might otherwise protect that common trash.
Exactly, nothing. It's a company town.
Consider that the actual police were there at all. They probably didn't each go on their own initiative. Apple's guy called an SFPD guy, who arranged for the officers to go along. So someone in the SFPD hierarchy was in on it.
No one in the SFPD is going to testify, or state during an investigation, that the Apple corporate police said anything that would lead the victim to believe that Apple's people were real police. Even though that was the whole point of the officers to be along, so the words "San Francisco Police" could be spoken, with all implications that come along with that.
Consider that the actual police were there at all. They probably didn't each go on their own initiative. Apple's guy called an SFPD guy, who arranged for the officers to go along. So someone in the SFPD hierarchy was in on it.
No one in the SFPD is going to testify, or state during an investigation, that the Apple corporate police said anything that would lead the victim to believe that Apple's people were real police. Even though that was the whole point of the officers to be along, so the words "San Francisco Police" could be spoken, with all implications that come along with that.
An official SFPD spokesman said "three or four" SFPD were involved in the actual search? How many SFPD resources were involved in the run-up to the search?
This sounds worse than a poor engineering post-mortem: only "three or four" hours or days went into the work, but that could easily involve another "three or four" that were not included in the estimate, so are not counted for the total effort involved.
I'd hope a publicly-funded department has greater accountability than a random development task, but here we are.
This sounds worse than a poor engineering post-mortem: only "three or four" hours or days went into the work, but that could easily involve another "three or four" that were not included in the estimate, so are not counted for the total effort involved.
I'd hope a publicly-funded department has greater accountability than a random development task, but here we are.
>I'd hope a publicly-funded department has greater accountability than a random development task//
Presumably these police carry GPS devices (that would eg give their location when they call in and such) and so the whereabouts of any officer on duty should be traceable in their database?
Presumably these police carry GPS devices (that would eg give their location when they call in and such) and so the whereabouts of any officer on duty should be traceable in their database?
> In an interview with SF Weekly last night, Calderón told us that six badge-wearing visitors came to his home in July to inquire about the phone. Calderón said none of them acknowledged being employed by Apple, and one of them offered him $300, and a promise that the owner of the phone would not press charges, if he would return the device.
I wonder if it was the Apple-associated people who spouted this lie (my guess would be yes).
Individuals (e.g. victims) do not have any say in whether or not a prosecutor charges a suspect with a crime. This is a common misunderstanding - there is no such thing as "pressing charges" if you are not a prosecutor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
I wonder if it was the Apple-associated people who spouted this lie (my guess would be yes).
Individuals (e.g. victims) do not have any say in whether or not a prosecutor charges a suspect with a crime. This is a common misunderstanding - there is no such thing as "pressing charges" if you are not a prosecutor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
> Reached this afternoon, Calderón confirmed that only two of the six people who came to his home actually entered the house. He said those two did not specifically state they were police officers.
> However, he said he was under the impression that they were all police, since they were part of the group outside that identified themselves as SFPD officials. The two who entered the house did not disclose that they were private security officers, according to Calderón.
I wonder if they had the same badges, uniform on? Or did the Apple people have their own security uniform on and Calderón just didn't notice the difference. Maybe Apple's people could have been more explicit that they were not the police, but this reads like a big misunderstanding.
> However, he said he was under the impression that they were all police, since they were part of the group outside that identified themselves as SFPD officials. The two who entered the house did not disclose that they were private security officers, according to Calderón.
I wonder if they had the same badges, uniform on? Or did the Apple people have their own security uniform on and Calderón just didn't notice the difference. Maybe Apple's people could have been more explicit that they were not the police, but this reads like a big misunderstanding.
The article said they were in plainclothes. No uniforms.
He voluntarily let them search his home, right? Does it matter whether they were police or not?
Well, nobody broke a law by entering after permission was given. But, they may have broken the law if they impersonated police officers (and how that law is drafted I do not know). They may also have broken the law (or, alternatively, the officers may face some penalty) for misuse of police resources -- I don't really know what kinds of rules there are about getting police to aid in private investigations, but I imagine there are some.
In any case, the person in question certainly didn't have to let these people in, and probably shouldn't have. But, it can be tough to justify refusing entry to the police if you think you haven't done anything wrong.
In any case, the person in question certainly didn't have to let these people in, and probably shouldn't have. But, it can be tough to justify refusing entry to the police if you think you haven't done anything wrong.
If standing next to a plainclothes officer who identifies himself as police is considered impersonating a police officer something is wrong with the law.
It sounds sketchy but I doubt anyone broke the law here.
It sounds sketchy but I doubt anyone broke the law here.
You probably have never seen this happen, hence your naiveté. When a bunch of cops show up at your door, each of them doesn't identify themselves separately as a cop. The leader will usually announce, "SFPD! We are here to investigate blah blah blah...", and probably show a badge. His other comrades will just stand there. They don't go down the conga line, each swearing an oath that they are cops. It is assumed that the first announcement is enough to establish authority.
Suppose you go on to the gridiron at the start of a match dressed as one of the team - you're just there right, not impersonating a member of the team? Anyone who things you're in the team is just mistaken, the team shouldn't need to make it clear?
If they found any evidence it would otherwise how is it admissible in court?
Horrible, horrible corporatism. That's not the stuff the American dream is made of.
I don't mean to be offensive, but George Carlin summed this up pretty decently:
It's called the American Dream because you have to be
asleep to believe it.I can't seem to find any mention regarding how Calderon came to hold the iPhone 5 prototype in his possession. Can anyone shed light on this? The media never seems to report on this aspect of the case.
He was at the bar the night it went missing. Likely Calderon pickpocketed the phone.
If a stolen iPhone phones home that it is at particular house that very instant (or recently), is that probable cause to search the house without a warrant? If the officers think that the phone is likely to stop phoning home imminently, seems like the answer would be "yes," but these devices are so new I wonder if courts have ruled on it.
Why would they need a warrant if they are given permission to enter and search the premises?
Apparently the actual police involved were well aware of what little legal right they had to be in the building. The "permission" they got would not hold up in court and they knew it.
Sniff a big lawsuit in the making - sounds like their might be an illegal search and seizure going on here - BIG RIGHTS VIOLATION.
I believe this is a strict liability case - meaning - would the normal guy think that his rights were being violated and he was the victim of an illegal search?
In what capacity were the cops and everyone involved identified at the time of the 'crime'? Should they have gotten a warrant? I definitely want to know what kind of documentation was taken - sounds to me like a good old fashion ILLEGAL police state shake up?
Anyone else?
Take care of these cops - this is ridiculous.
I believe this is a strict liability case - meaning - would the normal guy think that his rights were being violated and he was the victim of an illegal search?
In what capacity were the cops and everyone involved identified at the time of the 'crime'? Should they have gotten a warrant? I definitely want to know what kind of documentation was taken - sounds to me like a good old fashion ILLEGAL police state shake up?
Anyone else?
Take care of these cops - this is ridiculous.
Considering that billions of dollars worth of revenue are at stake here, and that Apple is likely a major target for industrial espionage, I have no problem with the government getting involved. Apple is a major contributor to both the local and national economy, and the government should help to protect their common interests.
New information:
San Francisco Police Department spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield now tells SF Weekly that "three or four" SFPD officers accompanied two Apple security officials in an unusual search of a Bernal Heights man's home.
...plainclothes SFPD officers went with private Apple detectives to the home of Sergio Calderón, a 22-year-old resident of Bernal Heights. According to Dangerfield, the officers "did not go inside the house," but stood outside while the Apple employees scoured Calderón's home, car, and computer files for any trace of the lost iPhone 5.