• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

GJ Apple.

daSkeptic said:
If getting a warrant were a legally necessary step, I would agree. However, it may not have been in this case. We just don't know yet.
Click to expand...

If a police officer asks you to search private property, and you say "yes", then he can search, and everything he finds during the search is admissible in court.

If you say "no", he needs to get a warrant. If he searches without the warrant, the evidence he finds is inadmissible.

In fact, if you open the door, they ask "May we come in?", and you let them in, you give up some rights, as everything that is in "plain sight" can be taken as evidence without a warrant. If you value your privacy, you don't let them in, and speak outside.

The homeowner said "yes". No search warrant needed.
 
They had a reasonable suspicion, he consented to a search. I find it hard to be outraged that he may have assumed it was six officers when it was actually four officers and two apple employees. The employees are necessary for the search as they could actually recognize the iPhone 5 when they see it.

I seriously doubt the Apple employees were in police uniforms or otherwise impersonating police, there'd be no reason to since they were accompanied by actual police.
Just seems like more of the usual "Apple is Evil" media meme.
 
elgarak said:
If a police officer asks you to search private property, and you say "yes", then he can search, and everything he finds during the search is admissible in court.
Click to expand...
The grey area here isn't whether or not a search warrant was necessary (as you say, owner permission is sufficient) but whether police officers were (should have been?) required to identify the Apple employees who participated in the search.

Admittedly, I would be [extremely] unlikely to allow police officers to search my home without a warrant. Still, there is zero chance I would permit some corporation's representatives to search my home without a specific court order to the contrary.
 
Last year, shortly before the release of the iPhone 4, a prototype was "lost in a bar". This year, shortly before the release of the iPhone 5, a prototype was "lost in a bar". Either Apple has a serious problem understanding what the word "security" means, or they simply figured everyone fell for it the first time so why not try it again. How many people reading these stories previously had no idea there was a new iPhone coming out soon?
 
Babbylonian said:
The grey area here isn't whether or not a search warrant was necessary (as you say, owner permission is sufficient) but whether police officers were (should have been?) required to identify the Apple employees who participated in the search.
Click to expand...
From what I have observed in police procedures, I don't think they are required to identify their party members or their affiliation. Ever. If there's one member of the party, who is an official, and identify as such, this is sufficient.

Unless you ask. Which I would do. "Who are all this people?" "OK, you can come in. YOU stay out."

Now, I don't think members of the party who are not officials can perform all the actions of police officers. That's, as far as I can tell, the only grey area in this instance. Can non-police officers perform a search without an officer present (as far as the reports go, the Apple guys went into the house, but the police stayed outside), and bag admissible evidence?

They didn't find evidence, so this point is moot now.

The other problematic point, as I believe I already said, is the missing or incomplete paperwork. As far as I know, police officers need to report pretty much everything they do. But Apple declined to file. So I believe the officer's action reports could have stayed anonymously on request.
 
Cuddles said:
Last year, shortly before the release of the iPhone 4, a prototype was "lost in a bar". This year, shortly before the release of the iPhone 5, a prototype was "lost in a bar". Either Apple has a serious problem understanding what the word "security" means, or they simply figured everyone fell for it the first time so why not try it again. How many people reading these stories previously had no idea there was a new iPhone coming out soon?
Click to expand...

Another option is their employees have a drinking problem.
 
I hate Apple, but I don't think they really did anything wrong. I would do the same thing to recover my lost property if I could. Perhaps the police did something wrong by allowing Apple employees to help with the search, I really have no idea, but that is hardly Apple's problem. If it was my house that they had wanted to search, this would not have been an issue though. There is no way I am letting cops in my house if they don't have a warrant, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom