

Police Assisted Apple Investigators in Search of SF Man's Home - scarmig
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_apple_police.php

======
scarmig
Discussion when news first broke:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2955087>

New information:

 _San Francisco Police Department spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield now tells SF
Weekly that "three or four" SFPD officers accompanied two Apple security
officials in an unusual search of a Bernal Heights man's home.

...plainclothes SFPD officers went with private Apple detectives to the home
of Sergio Calderón, a 22-year-old resident of Bernal Heights. According to
Dangerfield, the officers "did not go inside the house," but stood outside
while the Apple employees scoured Calderón's home, car, and computer files for
any trace of the lost iPhone 5._

------
ajays
Ask yourself: would 3-4 SFPD officers show up at the door of a suspected bike
thief if someone claimed he had stolen a bike worth $500?

Dear H-N readers from SF: you _can_ effect change by contacting your
supervisors and asking them to raise questions with SFPD. You don't have to
silently sit there watching bad things happen; you have an option, and that is
to speak up. Sending an email to your supervisor is a very easy thing to do,
and if enough of us band together and raise our voices, the powers-that-be
will have to listen.

~~~
jquery
He granted permission for the Apple employees to enter his residence to
search. Nothing in the article indicates any civil liberties were violated.

Ask yourself: would an iPhone 5 would get $500 on the open market? More likely
it would be worth $100,000 or more. And if someone stole a $100,000 device of
mine with a GPS device that was tracked to a residence, I would hope the SFPD
would help me. Anything less would be a miscarriage of justice.

Now onto guilt, this person admitted he was at the bar from which the iPhone
was allegedly stolen. Now while this might not be enough to convict someone in
a court of law, it's certainly enough to investigate further.

I do not understand why this story is getting any traction except the standard
internet hatreds for police and corporations.

~~~
RexRollman
The main problem, as I see it, is that he didn't know the two men who searched
their home were not police officers. Worse, the cops allowed the man to have
the impression that they were. And the fact that the cops themselves didn't go
inside shows me that they knew what they were doing was questionable.

~~~
ajays
"And the fact that the cops themselves didn't go inside shows me that they
knew what they were doing was questionable."

EXACTLY! Have you ever, ever known the cops to back off from doing something,
and let a civilian handle it? In my few observations of such situations, I've
always seen the cops take charge, and shoo the civilians away. For them to
just stand at the boundary line and watch the Apple goons go in and search, to
me, is clear evidence that the cops knew fully well what they were doing.

------
Steko
iOS 4.3.6: Fixed a bug with Find My iPhone that caused it to randomly show
phones as being at Sergio Calderon's house.

------
patrickod
What legal issues are there with the Apple employees and not the plainclothes
police officers carrying out this search ? Are Apple in the clear here seeing
as Calderon agreed to the search ?

~~~
0x0x0x
Yes, I would think so. Anyone _basically_ has any right to anything you allow.

~~~
pyre
But this is aggravated by the SFPD's presence. Sounds like things went down
like:

1) A group of people show up at his door in plain clothes.

2) Some of them identify as police officers.

3) They ask him about the iPhone 5 and he denies it.

4) They threaten him a bit and then ask him to allow a search of the premises.

5) Since, from his perspective, there are a bunch of police officers
threatening the immigration status of his family, he consents.

6) Two people from the group (Apple employees) enter the premises and search
for the iPhone. He assumes that they are police because they are all in plain
clothes (no way to tell them apart without asking to each each badge).

Seems to me like the police used their muscle to strong-arm the guy, but then
stopped short of doing the search themselves (because that would be illegal).
Since the guy consented to the search, then there may not be anything illegal
about the Apple employees performing the search.

This whole thing stinks:

* Sounds like the ex-police security guy that Apple hired got some of his buddies to use their badges to get him in the door.

* The police performed a search without technically performing a search.

* The Apple security employees impersonated police officers without technically impersonating police officers.

My take:

A bunch of police officers (and an ex-cop) were behaving badly on their off-
hours and now the SFPD is going to go into CYA-mode. No charges will be
brought. Nothing will happen to anyone. _Maybe_ the Apple security guy will
get dressed-down by his superiors for being so heavy-handed and causing bad
press.

~~~
ScottBurson
Agreed, it stinks. But I think the real responsibility here lies with the SFPD
officers, who deliberately conveyed the false impression that everyone in the
group were police. I don't know if there's a law on the books against a police
officer representing _another person_ as a police officer, but if not, there
damned well should be.

~~~
RexRollman
You're right. The cops knew what they were doing was wrong or else they would
have entered the home as well.

------
mscarborough
An official SFPD spokesman said "three or four" SFPD were involved in the
actual search? How many SFPD resources were involved in the run-up to the
search?

This sounds worse than a poor engineering post-mortem: only "three or four"
hours or days went into the work, but that could easily involve another "three
or four" that were not included in the estimate, so are not counted for the
total effort involved.

I'd hope a publicly-funded department has greater accountability than a random
development task, but here we are.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _I'd hope a publicly-funded department has greater accountability than a
> random development task_ //

Presumably these police carry GPS devices (that would eg give their location
when they call in and such) and so the whereabouts of any officer on duty
should be traceable in their database?

------
sneak
> In an interview with SF Weekly last night, Calderón told us that six badge-
> wearing visitors came to his home in July to inquire about the phone.
> Calderón said none of them acknowledged being employed by Apple, and one of
> them offered him $300, and a promise that the owner of the phone would not
> press charges, if he would return the device.

I wonder if it was the Apple-associated people who spouted this lie (my guess
would be yes).

Individuals (e.g. victims) do not have any say in whether or not a prosecutor
charges a suspect with a crime. This is a common misunderstanding - there is
no such thing as "pressing charges" if you are not a prosecutor.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>

------
sdkmvx
> Reached this afternoon, Calderón confirmed that only two of the six people
> who came to his home actually entered the house. He said those two did not
> specifically state they were police officers.

> However, he said he was under the impression that they were all police,
> since they were part of the group outside that identified themselves as SFPD
> officials. The two who entered the house did not disclose that they were
> private security officers, according to Calderón.

I wonder if they had the same badges, uniform on? Or did the Apple people have
their own security uniform on and Calderón just didn't notice the difference.
Maybe Apple's people could have been more explicit that they were not the
police, but this reads like a big misunderstanding.

~~~
runjake
The article said they were in plainclothes. No uniforms.

------
tlrobinson
He voluntarily let them search his home, right? Does it matter whether they
were police or not?

~~~
boucher
Well, nobody broke a law by entering after permission was given. But, they may
have broken the law if they impersonated police officers (and how that law is
drafted I do not know). They may also have broken the law (or, alternatively,
the officers may face some penalty) for misuse of police resources -- I don't
really know what kinds of rules there are about getting police to aid in
private investigations, but I imagine there are some.

In any case, the person in question certainly didn't have to let these people
in, and probably shouldn't have. But, it can be tough to justify refusing
entry to the police if you think you haven't done anything wrong.

~~~
tlrobinson
If standing next to a plainclothes officer who identifies himself as police is
considered impersonating a police officer something is wrong with the law.

It sounds sketchy but I doubt anyone broke the law here.

~~~
ajays
You probably have never seen this happen, hence your naiveté. When a bunch of
cops show up at your door, each of them doesn't identify themselves separately
as a cop. The leader will usually announce, "SFPD! We are here to investigate
blah blah blah...", and probably show a badge. His other comrades will just
stand there. They don't go down the conga line, each swearing an oath that
they are cops. It is assumed that the first announcement is enough to
establish authority.

------
Robin_Message
Horrible, horrible corporatism. That's not the stuff the American dream is
made of.

~~~
slowpoke
I don't mean to be offensive, but George Carlin summed this up pretty
decently:

    
    
      It's called the American Dream because you have to be
      asleep to believe it.

------
terrapinbear
I can't seem to find any mention regarding how Calderon came to hold the
iPhone 5 prototype in his possession. Can anyone shed light on this? The media
never seems to report on this aspect of the case.

~~~
jquery
He was at the bar the night it went missing. Likely Calderon pickpocketed the
phone.

------
codex
If a stolen iPhone phones home that it is at particular house that very
instant (or recently), is that probable cause to search the house without a
warrant? If the officers think that the phone is likely to stop phoning home
imminently, seems like the answer would be "yes," but these devices are so new
I wonder if courts have ruled on it.

~~~
karipatila
Why would they need a warrant if they are given permission to enter and search
the premises?

~~~
burgerbrain
Apparently the _actual_ police involved were well aware of what little legal
right they had to be in the building. The "permission" they got would not hold
up in court and they knew it.

------
Pointsly
Sniff a big lawsuit in the making - sounds like their might be an illegal
search and seizure going on here - BIG RIGHTS VIOLATION.

I believe this is a strict liability case - meaning - would the normal guy
think that his rights were being violated and he was the victim of an illegal
search?

In what capacity were the cops and everyone involved identified at the time of
the 'crime'? Should they have gotten a warrant? I definitely want to know what
kind of documentation was taken - sounds to me like a good old fashion ILLEGAL
police state shake up?

Anyone else?

Take care of these cops - this is ridiculous.

------
trying
Considering that billions of dollars worth of revenue are at stake here, and
that Apple is likely a major target for industrial espionage, I have no
problem with the government getting involved. Apple is a major contributor to
both the local and national economy, and the government should help to protect
their common interests.

