Skip to Content

Lost iPhone warrant withdrawn, Gizmodo agrees to cooperate in investigation

by Mike Schramm Jul 16th 2010 at 4:00PM


The search warrant against Gizmodo editor Jason Chen has been withdrawn, the EFF reports today. Chen's house was searched a few months ago after the Gawker blog reportedly purchased the lost iPhone 4 prototype, but the San Mateo District Attorney has decided to drop the warrant and return all seized items to Chen. Gizmodo tells the Wall Street Journal that it has "reached an agreement" with authorities, and they confirm that the site will "cooperate with our investigation."

That means, says the EFF, that the matter isn't completely over. There was some back and forth about whether the materials seized by authorities could have been so taken under journalist protection laws, and it's possible that the San Mateo DA simply withdrew the warrant in order to keep from violating any California shield laws. If the police still felt there was worthwhile evidence in Chen's possession, they could subpoena that material separately, thus going around any questions of journalistic protection. Indeed, as Gizmodo has already agreed to give the authorities materials that the court "deems relevant to the case," the investigation into the lost iPhone is not yet entirely over.

But it doesn't seem likely that Gizmodo would face any charges -- if the police are still pursuing a case at this point (and that's a big if), it would seem to be against the iPhone's original finder, who may have broken the law by selling the iPhone to Gizmodo. We'll have to wait and see if any more charges are filed.

[via TechCrunch]

View Tags

Related Stories

Categories

Apple

The search warrant against Gizmodo editor Jason Chen has been withdrawn, the EFF reports today. Chen's house was searched a few months ago...
 

Add a Comment

Sign in »
*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

24 Comments

Filter by:
swizard101

Is that warrant servable?

It says for a lawfully "sizeable" item, not a lawfully "seizable" one.

July 24 2010 at 7:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buzz

"Psst. Hey, buddy. Want to buy the next iPhone?"
"DO I? You don't know how much I DO!"
"Whadda ya gimme for it?"
"I'll give you a hundred dollars!"
"You nuts? This is worth millions. Billions maybe!"
"Okay, how about five hundred dollars?"
"That's (bovine excrement). Ten grand or no deal!"
"How about five grand? That's all I got in petty cash."
"Deal."
...

"Receiving stolen goods? Are you out of your mind? There's no way I could have known it was stolen!"

July 17 2010 at 4:07 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
farmboy

After reading the WSJ article, I come away with the impression that Gawker is agreeing to stop fighting the search and is cooperating. That means they've cut a plea bargain, probably to lower charges. It definitely doesn't mean they're off the hook. They're still liable for their part in the theft and aftermath.

July 17 2010 at 10:20 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
taitofu

Haha, coincidentally after all this 'attenuation' issue. I think Apple, and Steve, don't want to get any more bad press. If this is true, serves em right. Bring the bad press Gizmodo. It seemed to me, they tried to flex their muscles, but only busted their egos. *sigh* Not very smart, not smart at all.

July 17 2010 at 3:07 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
MRCUR

Let's not forget that knowingly purchasing stolen property, as Gizmodo did, is also illegal...

July 16 2010 at 8:12 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
SireB

Buying stolen property is still a crime.

July 16 2010 at 5:46 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Tom Gregson

"if the police are still pursuing a case at this point (and that's a big if)"

How, do tell, did you draw that conclusion? Gizmodo has agreed to cooperate with authorities. That means, by logical conclusion, that the case is proceeding against the 'seller'. Otherwise there would be no need for G's cooperation.

July 16 2010 at 5:44 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Tom Gregson's comment
MRCUR

"But it doesn't seem likely that Gizmodo would face any charges -- if the police are still pursuing a case at this point (and that's a big if), it would seem to be against the iPhone's original finder, who may have broken the law by selling the iPhone to Gizmodo."

Notice the "it would seem to be against the iPhone's original finder" part...

July 16 2010 at 8:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Byrdman

I'm pretty sure that when Gizmodo got the iPhone 4 originally, they made it clear that if apple wanted it back all they had to do was contact them and they would return it. Instead of doing so they raided Chen's home.

July 16 2010 at 4:50 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Byrdman's comment
rogerruthberg

--> if apple wanted it back all they had to do was contact them and they would return it. Instead of doing so they raided Chen's home.

So Apple raided Chen's home?

Get a grip.

July 16 2010 at 5:35 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
MRCUR

As the two comments above mine have pointed out, your facts are a little off.

Gizmodo was contacted by Steve Jobs asking for the phone back. Gizmodo replied with what was essentially black mail, insisting that the story had to be published. Further, Gizmodo insisted that Apple provide a written (they wanted it in writing) request for the return of their property.

Also, the police executed a search warrant (which was an entirely legal one, IMO) at Chen's home, not Apple.

July 16 2010 at 8:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
stinhoutx

I am probably wrong, but shouldn't that say "legally seizable" and not "legally sizeable"?

July 16 2010 at 4:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to stinhoutx's comment
stinhoutx

Ooops..."legally" in my post should have said "lawfully"

July 16 2010 at 4:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
stinhoutx

And, one more time, yes apparently this had been pointed out ad nauseam in April when originally posted. *sigh*

July 16 2010 at 4:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mike

Aww, man! TUAW and the Giz haters that comment on all the TUAW bashing Giz stories didn't get the ending they were hoping for.

All those misguided legal / criminal assumptions.... all those "Giz broke the law" statements.... the stories about how Gawker was out of its mind thinking shield laws protected it...

None are settled now, and especially not the way TUAW hoped. Here's to next time...

July 16 2010 at 4:15 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
4 replies to Mike's comment
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.