Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > How much will Apple pay to make this go away?

Reply
Thread Tools

How much will Apple pay to make this go away?

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2011
CNN:

Police investigating Apple house search

San Francisco (CNN) -- Police here have opened an investigation into
the search of a man's home by Apple employees, an official said
Wednesday.

San Francisco police were flooded with inquiries and barraged with
criticism after releasing a statement on Friday saying four officers
had aided Apple, which sent two of its security officials to search a
man's home for a "lost item."

At the time of the search last month, Apple declined to file a formal
report with the police. Apple did not find the device at the man's
home, police said.

The item they were looking for was a prototype for the next iPhone
that was lost in a bar, according to CNET, making this the second time
in as many years that an Apple employee has lost a prototype while out
for drinks. CNET reported earlier Wednesday that the police had opened
an investigation.

Lt. Troy Dangerfield confirmed that police are now investigating the
case, but he declined to comment further, citing a policy that
prohibits officials from discussing open investigations.

"It's not something we can just let pass," Dangerfield said.

Police officials said they were unable to confirm until Friday that a
search had taken place because those involved did not file paperwork,
at Apple's request.

Apple had not returned an official's initial request for comment,
police spokesman Albie Esparza said last week. The official statement
came after police finally conferred with Apple. Apple declined CNN's
request for comment on Friday.

A man told the publication SF Weekly last week that he consented to a
search of his home when the people arrived and identified themselves
as police. He reportedly said it wasn't clear that the pair searching
his home were Apple employees, not police; he also told the
publication he would not have authorized the search if he had known.

Misrepresenting oneself as being a police officer is a crime, but
police are allowed to mislead suspects, said Rebecca Lonergan, a
former federal prosecutor who now teaches at the University of
Southern California's law school.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> CNN:
>
> Police investigating Apple house search
>
> San Francisco (CNN) -- Police here have opened an investigation into
> the search of a man's home by Apple employees, an official said
> Wednesday.


Only problem... SFPD accompanied Apple to said house.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
On Sep 9, 3:05*am, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>
> *RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > CNN:

>
> > Police investigating Apple house search

>
> > San Francisco (CNN) -- Police here have opened an investigation into
> > the search of a man's home by Apple employees, an official said
> > Wednesday.

>
> Only problem... SFPD accompanied Apple to said house.
>


Makes me wonder how many times private security firms have been
allowed to do this kind of thing.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:05:08 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article
><(E-Mail Removed)>,
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> CNN:
>>
>> Police investigating Apple house search
>>
>> San Francisco (CNN) -- Police here have opened an investigation into
>> the search of a man's home by Apple employees, an official said
>> Wednesday.

>
>Only problem... SFPD accompanied Apple to said house.


So they conducted a warrentless search by proxy? At the request of
said proxy?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
John A. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:05:08 +0200, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> CNN:
> >>
> >> Police investigating Apple house search
> >>
> >> San Francisco (CNN) -- Police here have opened an investigation into
> >> the search of a man's home by Apple employees, an official said
> >> Wednesday.

> >
> >Only problem... SFPD accompanied Apple to said house.

>
> So they conducted a warrentless search by proxy? At the request of
> said proxy?


They (SFPD) didn't conduct a search at all. They accompanied the
persons acting allegedly under Apples name to said premises according
to SFPD. Anything else are just assumptions.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sep 9, 3:05*am, Sandman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > In article
> > <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >
> > *RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > CNN:

> >
> > > Police investigating Apple house search

> >
> > > San Francisco (CNN) -- Police here have opened an investigation into
> > > the search of a man's home by Apple employees, an official said
> > > Wednesday.

> >
> > Only problem... SFPD accompanied Apple to said house.
> >

>
> Makes me wonder how many times private security firms have been
> allowed to do this kind of thing.


What, knock on house doors? Ask for the PD to accompany them to a
house where they suspect a criminal is located?


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:08:42 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>This issue is about Apple's effort to cover up the second loss of a
>prototype, and how they compromised four officers careers with this
>violation of Constitutional Rights.


The careers of the four officers may be compromised, but the blame
falls as much on them for participating as it does on Apple for
requesting their services. More, even, in that they should have known
what they were about to do was wrong.

If they participated under orders from a superior, then the blame
falls on the superior(s).

You don't escape blame because you were asked to do something wrong.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
In article <2011090908084282327-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Those four SFPD officers facilitated a warrantless search, in violation
> of the Fourth Amendment.


according to reports, the police asked to search and the person said ok.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
In article <2011090910073778840-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> Those four SFPD officers facilitated a warrantless search, in violation
> >> of the Fourth Amendment.

> >
> > according to reports, the police asked to search and the person said ok.

>
> Read the report again.


which one? the story keeps changing, but it's clear it was a consensual
search.

cops do it all the time. "you don't mind if i search your vehicle, do
you?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-09-2011
In article <2011090911081342612-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>>> Those four SFPD officers facilitated a warrantless search, in violation
> >>>> of the Fourth Amendment.
> >>>
> >>> according to reports, the police asked to search and the person said ok.
> >>
> >> Read the report again.

> >
> > which one? the story keeps changing, but it's clear it was a consensual
> > search.

>
> Consensual in that the resident permitted it when asked. However that
> does not speak to the state on mind of that resident when faced with
> little choice but to submit to the search.


he consented. it's not a 4th amendment violation.

whether proper procedure was followed is another story. that's why
there is an investigation.

> > cops do it all the time. "you don't mind if i search your vehicle, do
> > you?"

>
> When was the last time you found cops doing that "all the time"?
>
> I can assure you that the great majority of officers do not conduct
> vehicle searches every time they stop one, that is usually more trouble
> than it is worth.


i didn't say they search every car, however, if they want to search,
they are first going to ask to search knowing the person is probably
going to consent.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Apple sues Apple over iPod GraB NZ Computing 2 03-29-2006 08:49 PM
Apple iPod trash, like all Apple products Rich DVD Video 8 02-27-2006 01:32 AM



Advertisments