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.
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.
KNOW your rights. Nothing stinks here. As one of the videos below states: If police is entitled to a search then they will just break in and do a search. If they ASK for consent, and even more, if they threaten, they KNOW that they are not entitled.
Keep the door shut and don't given up your rights.
That's all nice and dandy in a vaccuum, but it discounts the real world where the police will make threats to get what they want. You're argument is like claiming that an RIAA case has no legs to stand on... It sounds nice until you're the one that has to spend a fortune on lawyers to prove that.
Also, you're telling me that /nothing/ here stinks?
How about:
- This was likly an 'off the books' operation until it hit the media. This is why the SFPD spokesperson thought that no police were present.
- This was likely a bunch of officers using their badges to help a friend in their off hours. Now the SFPD is probably feverishly writing up paperwork to make this look legit to cover for the cops in question.
- The cops in question committed what amounts to fraud by implying that the Apple employees were cops.
Don't point out that the guy didn't know his rights and act like that is the only thing wrong with this picture.
Going completely off topic, there are, at least in some places, irrevocable rights which cannot be overruled by consent. In the UK, R v Brown[1] "ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for wounding and actual bodily harm".
I believe there is also law (again, varying by jurisdiction and treaty obligations) to prevent a person from consenting to their own slavery. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indentured_se... seems to cover it briefly, but I can't find a better reference immediately.
He said basically IMO because he meant "of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".
It's an internet forum not rendition of statute.
He can't say anything that "prevent"s proper discussion on an open internet forum. If you wanted to discuss informed consent, duress or fraud why not just do that.
Oh please. Use a little common sense next time you post. Anyone who attends, what sixth grade, knows there are some rights you can't give up and my comment was merely an attempt to avoid some tired lengthy discussion of that.
From what we know the "suspect" consented to a search of his apartment. That's the end of at least this part of the story.
"of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed".
I do not understand the "consent to the further subset..." Part. Its not a sentence construction I am familiar with.
Sorry that would be my legal training. Perhaps you can attempt to construe the sentence in the spirit it was written (like with badly drafted law ;0), you sound like you're intelligent enough to do that. Commas aren't free you know ...
>"of the subset of actions against your person or property that you can legally consent to, the further subset of those you have freely consented to are those actions that you can not properly object to being performed" //
