Do you think the police acted correctly to Jason Chen?

liveforfunnow 2010-04-26 17:15:57

It sounds like the police were respectful, but ignorant of the law. They cannot seize property without a subpoena -- warrants are not valid for journalists.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

| 17 replies

dogcow 2010-04-26 17:18:04

Really? What if the journalist is the target of the investigation? You mean Dan Rather gets immunity from any search warrant just because he's a journalist?

liveforfunnow 2010-04-26 17:20:04

He gets immunity to any warrant that was issued in relation to a published article or issue, yes. Not to murder, of course.

dave 2010-04-26 17:21:03

From reading the warrant, it sounds like the officers acted within the confines of the law. A search warrant applies to search and seizure as officers can enter a premises and confiscate any items related to the investigation or that may be pertinent to the crime.

peter 2010-04-26 17:21:21

This is the real issue, not whether or not he's a journalist.

kris 2010-04-26 17:24:23

The law (Section 1070) only applies to protecting sources, not to protecting journalists from committing illegal acts, even if it's for a story.

ohpleaseno 2010-04-26 17:25:26

the level that the shield law should have been regarded was not the officer who served the warrant, it's the judge and the district attorney who issued the warrant. i agree with dave, the officers probably did what they were supposed to do.

dogcow 2010-04-26 17:25:59

I don't think murder is the only criteria. If someone is being investigated for committing a felony, you think he gets immunity if he's a journalist and wrote about it?

peter 2010-04-26 17:26:50

You clearly do not understand how shield laws work.

liveforfunnow 2010-04-26 17:27:29

Let's take another example. Imagine if Richard Nixon had left the Watergate Tapes on a barstool. Someone "steals" them and sells them to the Journal for $5000.

Would the situation be identical?

I understand that of course not ALL warrants are void for journalists, but it does seem to me that the judge who issued the warrant acted more on ignorance of "bloggers as journalists."

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yoda 2010-04-26 17:31:05

I know hardly anything about law, but I'm pretty sure those two are different. The iPhone 4G is Apples legal property, nothing wrong with them having it. The watergate tapes were evidence against Nixon, yes? Different deal.

dave 2010-04-26 17:31:07

A better analogy for this situation:

They could probably claim shield law and protect their source if they didn't *pay* for the device. If a "little birdie" simply showed it to them and went on his way, there probably wouldn't be a case here.

The fact that money and an object changed hands is what makes this criminal.

peter 2010-04-26 17:32:35

If Gizmodo had been given the phone for free they would have ZERO legal problems right now.

liveforfunnow 2010-04-26 17:34:00

Let's assume the tapes were Nixon's private property in the first place, just like the iPhone was Apple's. Same situation. Does shield law protect the publishers of the contents of the tape, even if they paid for the tapes?

dogcow 2010-04-26 17:34:56

peter, what do you think about Jesus Diaz claiming they just bought "access" to the phone in a recent tweet?

peter 2010-04-26 17:36:51

I think that's nonsense.

Yoda 2010-04-26 17:39:45

I'll second that.

roberto 2010-04-27 01:56:58

Gizmodo should not have paid for that phone. The moment this guy pitched it to them, they should have called the cops and reported the incident. They are going to spend more money solving this mess than what they generated on page views. Easy come, easy go.

gdgt

Do you think the police acted correctly to Jason Chen?

Related questions

13 users following this question:

Tips for giving the best answers