Police Seize Jason Chen's Computers

Gizmodo points out that the warrant was invalid because it violated section 1524(g) of the California State Penal Code:<p>(g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.<p>Section 1070 of the Evidence Code reads:<p>(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.<p>(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.<p>(c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.<p>I am not a lawyer, but I would point out that even though the description of evidence to be seized was extremely vague, the cops can seize the items on it, since the warrant was not specifically for the items mentioned in 1070. If the computer media contains such items, they are not admissible as evidence in a trial. Other data, such as proof of a felony (the reason for the warrant), should be, IMO.

It's pretty unfair how the cops can take all of the tools you need for work without ever charging you with a crime. Jason's lucky in that he can easily loan another computer/camera, but many hackers would be in a serious trouble if all their computers were seized.

I just have to republish this tech crunch comment, made me laugh so hard I scared my dog:<p>From <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/the-iphone-leak-gets-ugly-police-raid-gizmodo-editors-house-confiscate-computers/#ixzz0mFB1tQFt" rel="nofollow">http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/the-iphone-leak-gets-ugly-p...</a><p>--<p>Shan - April 26th, 2010 at 1:51 pm UTC<p>How it’s[sic] stolen property?<p>If you found a property which is unclaimed what you will do?<p>Since Gizmodo was unable to find owner of that iPhone.. they published on their blog with various features so the owner would come and get it from them..<p>--

The only one I really feel sorry for here is Chen's wife. He at least gets to be the guy who broke this story. She gets to make wife-face at him for the next 4 months.

Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple...<p>When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf?<p>I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere between $1000 to $5000, there was identification of the person and there was nothing remotely as swift or stern taken here to recover.

I'm surprised that nobody's commented on Gawker's legal response to the search, in which they point out that the search warrant (or, at least, the scanned copy on Gizmodo's web site) clearly shows that a "night search" was unauthorized, whereas the search of Chen's home just as clearly took place at night. Does that mean that the search was unlawful?

Nick Denton, the Gawker Media CEO tweeted an interesting question:<p><i>Do bloggers count as journalists? I guess we'll find out. Police raid Gizmodo editor's home: <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5524843/*" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5524843/*</a><p><a href="http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12902208226" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/12902208226</a>

The warrant states that the search and seizure was to acquire evidence of a felony. It seems like there are worse things that could happen to him than having his computers seized. (Like getting convicted of a felony)

At least it was the real police and not the Apple secret police.

isn't this a bit excessive over something that would have been out in ~3 months anyway?<p>An engineer leaves phone in a bar. Gizmodo purchases phone, does their expose, then returns phone. Cops seize all of authors computers, phones, etc.