«

On Sep 9, 1:29*pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 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?"

Yes, COPS do it all the time. COPS. "Do you mind if this Apple
security guy searches your vehicle?" It's surreal.

In article <2011090912091444303-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > he consented. it's not a 4th amendment violation.
>
> Only technically. It was a blatant circumvention of the Fourth
> Amendment and a ruse to gain that consent. The resident complied under
> some duress, and should have denied the search until a warrant could be
> procured.

perhaps he should have denied it, but he didn't. they had consent.

whether he gave that consent while under duress is separate issue, and
perhaps one which will come out in the investigation.

> I suspect that had he refused, the situation would have escalated and
> become very different.

i doubt it would have, but it depends what evidence they had. if he
said no, they would have likely come back with a warrant if what they
had was credible. he didn't have it so they still wouldn't have found
anything. however, if he said no and actually did have it, you can be
sure the phone would have found a new home *really* quickly, long
before they came back with a warrant.

> The point is the Apple employees used the passive presence of the
> police officers to bolster their false authority, and the four officers
> knowingly abetted in the deception.

basically yes, but that's just deception, not a 4th amendment issue and
it's not unusual for cops to trick people into admitting things.

> > whether proper procedure was followed is another story. that's why
> > there is an investigation.
>
> Agreed. This is an investigation into the SFPD officers and the Bernal
> Heights District police supervisors, not Apple. It is these SFPD
> officers who will have to face the departmental disciplinary board
> after the investigation complete.

i'm sure apple is reevaluating things too.

> >>> 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.
>
> Mostly, but not always, then things can get ugly very quickly. Been
> there done that.
>
> Apple should have tightened its security on prototypes and those
> authorized to test them after last year's fiasco,

after last year, they no doubt changed how they manage prototypes and
they're probably going to tighten it even more going forward, but the
prototypes need to be tested in real world situations which means in
restaurants and bars and other places where someone might potentially
lose it. it's also possible it was deliberately taken without the
knowledge of the apple employee, e.g., a pickpocket.

> and they should never
> have had to resort to this attempted cover-up. That sort of thing is
> doomed in this age of wired information.

nobody outside of apple, the officers involved and the resident knows
exactly what transpired, and i'm sure they each have a slightly
different take on the events.

> I think this is an unfortunate goof on the part of Apple and the SFPD.
> All the more so as it gave Rich something to feed on.

that part is true.

In article <2011090914231017709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> I suspect that had he refused, the situation would have escalated and
> >> become very different.
> >
> > i doubt it would have, but it depends what evidence they had.
>
> We don't know. That is speculation on my part. The evidence was, Apple
> had tracked the iPhone to that address. You would think that they would
> have made one final check with their tracking device to ensure that it
> was behind that door before knocking.

they may have done that, but if the phone was off it's not going to
show up. we don't know how hot or cold the location data was.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:09:14 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>Only technically. It was a blatant circumvention of the Fourth
>Amendment and a ruse to gain that consent. The resident complied under
>some duress, and should have denied the search until a warrant could be
>procured.

I wouldn't use "duress" there at all, even "some duress". "Duress",
when it is a defense, is unlawful pressure, threat, or use of violence
to coerce a person to do what they would ordinarily not do.

The presence of the police officers was "undue influence": a wrong
committed by a fiduciary or one who occupies a position of trust.


On a different note, I love the defense of the Apple guy losing the
phone in a bar because Apple would want to test the phone in places
people use phones. If the guy's there testing the phone, he should
know where the phone is...wouldn't you think?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 9/9/2011 11:41 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-09-09 08:18:27 -0700, tony cooper <>
> said:
>
<snip>


> You cannot go wrong if you document events in a report, particularly if
> the decision to be made is way above your pay scale.
>

Really? "I was only following orders," is not a blanket defense.


> This is not going to go away.
>

True.

--
Peter

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:59:45 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:09:14 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>Only technically. It was a blatant circumvention of the Fourth
>>Amendment and a ruse to gain that consent. The resident complied under
>>some duress, and should have denied the search until a warrant could be
>>procured.
>
>I wouldn't use "duress" there at all, even "some duress". "Duress",
>when it is a defense, is unlawful pressure, threat, or use of violence
>to coerce a person to do what they would ordinarily not do.
>
>The presence of the police officers was "undue influence": a wrong
>committed by a fiduciary or one who occupies a position of trust.
>
>
>On a different note, I love the defense of the Apple guy losing the
>phone in a bar because Apple would want to test the phone in places
>people use phones. If the guy's there testing the phone, he should
>know where the phone is...wouldn't you think?

Maybe they were testing their ability to track the phone.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:05:12 -0400, John A. <>
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:59:45 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 12:09:14 -0700, Savageduck
>><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Only technically. It was a blatant circumvention of the Fourth
>>>Amendment and a ruse to gain that consent. The resident complied under
>>>some duress, and should have denied the search until a warrant could be
>>>procured.
>>
>>I wouldn't use "duress" there at all, even "some duress". "Duress",
>>when it is a defense, is unlawful pressure, threat, or use of violence
>>to coerce a person to do what they would ordinarily not do.
>>
>>The presence of the police officers was "undue influence": a wrong
>>committed by a fiduciary or one who occupies a position of trust.
>>
>>
>>On a different note, I love the defense of the Apple guy losing the
>>phone in a bar because Apple would want to test the phone in places
>>people use phones. If the guy's there testing the phone, he should
>>know where the phone is...wouldn't you think?
>
>Maybe they were testing their ability to track the phone.

I can just hear some Apple rep telling his wife that the only reason
he was in the stripper bar was to hide the phone so his partner could
seek it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:54:33 -0400, PeterN <>
wrote:
: On 9/9/2011 11:41 AM, Savageduck wrote:
: > On 2011-09-09 08:18:27 -0700, tony cooper <>
: > said:
: >
: <snip>
:
:
: > You cannot go wrong if you document events in a report, particularly if
: > the decision to be made is way above your pay scale.
: >
:
: Really? "I was only following orders," is not a blanket defense.

Well... This is not a life-or-death matter; whatever happened, the courts can
set it right. If the officers had written in their report that they had
reminded their superior that no one had obtained a warrant, that should
probably get them off the hook. But from what we know, they didn't write a
report. Which renders the Duck's point moot and raises a nasty question: Did
Apple's "security team" make it worth the officers' while to skip that
inconvenient step?

: > This is not going to go away.
:
: True.

So we hope. In some jurisdictions it probably would have gone away already.

Bob

On 9/10/2011 12:09 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:54:33 -0400, PeterN<>
> wrote:
> : On 9/9/2011 11:41 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> :> On 2011-09-09 08:18:27 -0700, tony cooper<>
> :> said:
> :>
> :<snip>
> :
> :
> :> You cannot go wrong if you document events in a report, particularly if
> :> the decision to be made is way above your pay scale.
> :>
> :
> : Really? "I was only following orders," is not a blanket defense.
>
> Well... This is not a life-or-death matter; whatever happened, the courts can
> set it right. If the officers had written in their report that they had
> reminded their superior that no one had obtained a warrant, that should
> probably get them off the hook. But from what we know, they didn't write a
> report. Which renders the Duck's point moot and raises a nasty question: Did
> Apple's "security team" make it worth the officers' while to skip that
> inconvenient step?

There are many issues that the courts cannot set straight, which do not
involve life & death issues. Ask DSK.

>
> :> This is not going to go away.
> :
> : True.
>
> So we hope. In some jurisdictions it probably would have gone away already.
>
> Bob


--
Peter