4 ms·

Legal analysis of it by EFF's Senior Attorney: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-search-warrant-illegal http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo

• danudey 17y ago
  Shield law doesn't protect you from committing a crime. The issue here is that Chen is suspected in (or suspected of being complicit in) purchasing stolen goods. If the phone finder had found the phone and sent photos and info to Gizmodo, they would be protected, but since they purchased the phone they've also committed a crime and have forfeited their journalistic protection.
  • hga 17y ago
    According to Orin Kerr's analysis on The Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/2010/04/27/thoughts-on-the-legality-of-the-gizmodo-warrant/ http://volokh.com/2010/04/27/thoughts-on-the-legality-of-the...), while the US Federal law has this exception it's missing from the California state law.
  • arn 17y ago
    no one (not even the EFF) is saying that shield law protects you from committing a crime. If you read the EFF's post (linked above), there is a argument that the warrant runs a-fowl of the law. Not that they are immune to the law.
    • gte910h 17y ago
      No one is arguing the State of California can't get the evidence. Just the law states you can't use warrants to get it from journalists, just subpoenas, to allow to filter out items from other sources/stories. Federal law has an exception. State law doesn't have an explicit one.
• tvon 17y ago
  Declan McCullagh and Greg Sandoval: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html?tag=newsL... (for the sake of adding opinions, as opposed to refuting the EFF opinion)