By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 28 April 2010
Edit Thread
famousringo said:
Rath said:
Shield laws should undeniably have protected the journalists stuff from being raided (requires a subpoena rather than a search warrant when its dealing with a case of journalism with a source like this) which is the DA's fuck up I guess.

Also I find it a bit dodgy that the police unit (a high tech crimes unit) that raided the house has got Apple as part of the steering committee. Hopefully turns out to be coincidence.

You're assuming that the computers were taken to investigate the 'finder' of the phone. Buying stolen property is a crime in CA, and shield laws are a lot murkier when the journalist is the one being investigated.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/can-gizmodo-win-the-iphone-legal-battle/

If a judge ends up agreeing with the EFF on this, just imagine all the fun things that bloggers could do inside their own homes without having to worry about the police showing up. Doesn't seem practical to me in a world where anybody with a computer and an internet connection can become a 'journalist.'

I think the reason a subpoena is required is to specify what information can be taken and investigated and so it can be challenged. It's to stop the state/police intimidating journalists or taking damaging revelations back before they can be released.

@TheRealMafoo. Not above the law, just slightly different under the law. Your crime can and will still be investigated, it's just how its investigated that comes into question I think.

 

Certainly the shield law has had enough of an effect that they have halted the investigation (not looking at Chen's stuff) until they have sorted it out, seems odd to do this after the raid though, you think they would have checked if they could do the raid before they actually did it...