In response to the California police raid on Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home, Gawker Media is arguing that the search and seizure was illegal because California law precludes a warrant being used to ascertain the name of a journalistic source.
Gizmodo’s interpretation of the law, however, entirely misses the point. The impetus for the warrant appears to be rooted in Gizmodo’s commission of a felony, namely the purchase of an iPhone they had reason to believe was stolen property.
Shield laws in the US were designed to protect sources, but by entering into a contract with said source (5 grand in exchange for the iPhone), Gizmodo was no longer just the recipient of information, but an active participant in the commission of a felony – hence the warrant.
Despite Giz’s arguments to the contrary, the warrant is 100% kosher.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Your analysis is not at all obviously established, and several legal experts disagree with it. You, uh, aren’t a legal expert are you?
April 26th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
26 Years in the Legal Profession say’s the the analogy and interpretation of the Edible Apple Piece is correct and to the point.
And since you are not involved with the law by the response that you have given leaves me to suspect you of the few that believe Gizmodo is and was within there rights to deal and purchase stolen property.
So much for concessive and analytical thought.
Problem is, I have seen a number of post like the one from joe, And it shows that the average mental awareness and responsibility of taking responsibility and knowing Right from Wrong alludes allot of responders.
i have seen the Few Not Several but the few post from Non legal reports trying to come across as being knowledgeable in the law and it is shocking to say the least how many people believe this armchair rants as the truth.
Believe what you will joe, you will find out soon that you have been given and believed in false hope and analysis from the Gizmodo family of “White Washers”.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:55 am
What about the night search aspect? Just wondering what that little technicality will do.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:53 am
If it wasn’t so sad it would be hilarious watching the Gizmodo apologists twist and obfuscate the facts in this case.
April 27th, 2010 at 9:47 am
a “night search” is one conducted between the hours of 10pm and 7am. this wasn’t a night search. next question?
April 27th, 2010 at 10:15 am
It’s becoming evident that Gizmodo’s ‘legal council’ is their Chief Operating Officer who dabbled in reading legal blogs. Since when does an organization address legal concerns through a COO? I would love to be a fly on the wall when the boys from Gizmodo sit in front of real legal council for the first time.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Well.. the boys and girls..