District Attorney Critiques Gizmodo Emails In iPhone 4 Prototype Case 155
lee1 writes "After the police broke in to a Gizmodo editor's home and collected emails from computers found there as part of the investigation of the stolen 2010 iPhone prototype, the San Mateo District Attorney's office petitioned the court to withdraw the search warrant, because it violated a law intended to protect journalists. Nevertheless, the DA, rather than apologize for the illegal search and seizure, issued a critique of the seized emails, commenting that they were 'juvenile' and that 'It was obvious that they were angry with the company about not being invited to ... some big Apple event. ... this is like 15-year-old children talking.''"
Re:Exactly, when did theft become so praiseworthy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gizmodo stopped being protected by any journalism shield the moment they actively participated in theft of private property.
Just as a note here, purchasing a stolen good is not the same as being accessory to the theft. Usually, purchasing a stolen good is only punished by forfeiture of the item (without any refund). Yes, knowingly purchasing stolen goods (which Gizmodo clearly did) can be treated more harshly but it apparently has to have a value of more than $5,000 (convenient selling price you used there Gizmodo...)
But still, in order for the act to be accessory to the theft, the theft would have to be done at the request of the purchaser. As this was clearly a theft of opportunity, Gizmodo could have not participated in the theft, but rather only committed a separate crime. (And likely not even then, because the value wasn't high enough.)
That DA is a funny moron. (Score:5, Interesting)
The emails were private. They were unlawfully seized. The DA takes those private, unlawfully seized emails and compounds the wrong by commenting upon them in the media in a derogatory way.
He has absolute immunity for being a prosecutor, but he has no immunity for making stupid-ass statements based on illegally obtained information.
This is an easy section 1983 case, albeit for limited damages. This stupid DA just cost his municipality a few thousand dollars.