

Prosecutors defend Gizmodo search in iPhone probe - miles
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003615-37.html

======
SamAtt
This is BS.

If theft is the issue and they'd already identified the person who sold the
phone they had no reason to search Gizmodo's stuff. Gizmodo very publicly
admitted to paying for the phone so if they consider that theft they didn't
need to search Gizmodo's stuff because they had a confession.

But this quote drives me CRAZY...

"Initially it's just a theft investigation," Wagstaffe said. "But ultimately
could it lead to more? That's going to depend on what they learn. That's why
they would like to be able to look at the computer and interview everybody
that they can so they can determine the extent of what's involved."

So if you think someone might be guilty of a generic crime that you can't even
specify it's ok to seize their stuff? If that's the case can't they just say
"That guy looks like a criminal" and then go and search his house for proof
that he is? Total BS

