How much will Apple pay to make this go away?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Sep 8, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
    RichA, Sep 8, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> 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. :p


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Sep 9, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 9, 3:05 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    >  RichA <> 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. :p
    >


    Makes me wonder how many times private security firms have been
    allowed to do this kind of thing.
    RichA, Sep 9, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:05:08 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article
    ><>,
    > RichA <> 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. :p


    So they conducted a warrentless search by proxy? At the request of
    said proxy?
    John A., Sep 9, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    John A. <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:05:08 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article
    > ><>,
    > > RichA <> 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. :p

    >
    > 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]
    Sandman, Sep 9, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > On Sep 9, 3:05 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > >
    > >  RichA <> 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. :p
    > >

    >
    > 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]
    Sandman, Sep 9, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Sep 9, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Sep 9, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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?"
    nospam, Sep 9, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Sep 9, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 9, 1:29 pm, nospam <> 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.
    RichA, Sep 9, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Sep 9, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Sep 9, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Sep 10, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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
    PeterN, Sep 10, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    John A. Guest

    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. ;)
    John A., Sep 10, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Sep 10, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
    Robert Coe, Sep 10, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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
    PeterN, Sep 10, 2011
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James Thomas

    Can't make dial-up box go away.

    James Thomas, Jan 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    928
    Ken Stone Jr
    Jan 17, 2004
  2. peter
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,053
    Morgan Ohlson
    Dec 18, 2003
  3. Rich
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,065
  4. TNKEV

    Make it go away!

    TNKEV, Mar 30, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    642
    Richard Colton
    Mar 31, 2006
  5. Steve Freides
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    5,250
Loading...

Share This Page