Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 21:47 UTC
Apple So, I kind of mocked this story yesterday, but today an interesting twist has emerged which puts the story in an entirely different light. This week, CNet reported a story about how Apple is working with the San Francisco Police Department to retrieve a lost iPhone 5 prototype. The police and Apple apparently traced the phone to someone's house, and showed up on his doorstep, threatening him and his family. The only problem - the SFPD has no record of any house search or of the case in general - raising the question whether Apple employees falsely impersonated the SFPD, which happens to be a serious crime in California. Update: While I was busy sleeping, the story changed a little bit, but it's still far too shady. After conferring with Apple, the SFPD now states four police officers were involved, and that only the two Apple employees entered Calderon's house. However, Calderon had no idea these two were private non-police people, since he claims they did not identify themselves as Apple employees. Had he known, he would not have let them search his house. So, update or no, Apple employees still impersonated police officers, and issued threats to intimidate Calderon into letting them search his house - without a warrant. I don't understand how people can just accept this sort of behaviour. Don't you have rights in the US? Update II: Perfect summary.
Permalink for comment 488395
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: SFPD was involved
by yfph on Sun 4th Sep 2011 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: SFPD was involved"
Member since:

If it was the police officers who represented themselves as SFPD the Apple employees could just be quiet and let the man think they're also officers. In that way they wouldn't actually have said they are officers, they would only be guilty of not saying who they are, and could possibly get scott-free in court. That's what I meant with my previous comment.

By acting under the color of law to deprive a homeowner's fourth amendment rights, the Apple Employees, and Apple by extension of the doctrine of respondeat superior for vicarious liability, could have breached 42 USC 1983, a civil liability in tort. Thus, the homeowner could nab Apple for punitive damages. IANAL.

Reply Parent Score: 2