Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Lost Protoype iPhone Seller ID'd, Gizmodo Journo's Home Searched

By Jeralyn

The saga over the Apple employee's lost iPhone that was a prototype of the upcoming G4 version continues. Police have identified the person who found it in the bar, who may or may not be the person who sold it to Jason Chen, the Gizmodo/Gawker blogger/journalist. (Gizmodo is an online site run owned by Gawker. Chen has worked for them since 2006, writing hundreds of articles.)

At Apple's request, a criminal investigation was launched and a search warrant was issued and executed at Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home. He and his wife were out and police busted in and took several computers, servers and records.

Gawker protests, citing a CA shield law. The cops say they won't examine what what was taken until it's decided whether the shield law applies.

Why wouldn't it apply? [More...] EFF dissects the warrant here. Law Prof Paul Olm provides legal analysis. Some say because Jason Chen is a blogger, not a journalist. But a California appeals court ruled in 2006 bloggers are protected as online periodicals.

The New York Times asks, Can Gizmodo Win the iPhone legal battle? According to one person interviewed, if it was stolen property, the shield law might not apply.

The phone wasn't stolen it was left in a bar by an Apple employee. But Gizmodo paid $5,000.00 for it. Is that a crime? No one seems to know. Seems to me, if they don't even know a crime has been committed or that publishing the photos or buying the lost phone is a crime, there's no probable cause to believe evidence of a crime would be found at Chen's house, and no reason for a search warrant. The Times' legal counsel was asked if they would have published photos of the phone. He says yes, but they wouldn't have paid for the phone.

George Freeman, assistant general counsel for The Times, told me the paper would have published images of the phone. “It’s legal to publish information you shouldn’t have as long as it’s newsworthy, it’s accurate and you didn’t do anything illegal to obtain it,” Mr. Freeman said. But, he said, The Times would not have paid for the phone.

“Paying for journalism has a stigma attached to it that might color the case in an unfavorable way,” he added, “but it doesn’t mean it was illegal.”

I don't think this search warrant has a chance of standing up. Between the journalist privilege and the lack of evidence a crime was committed, there was no cause for the issuance of the warrant. It's particularly galling they broke in to serve it. I hope the cops face some financial consequences to Chen when this is all said and done.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 27, 2010 (boomark / email).