This is BS. If theft is the issue and they'd already identified the person who sold the phone they had no reason to search Gizmodo's stuff. Gizmodo very publi

This is BS. If theft is the issue and they'd already identified the person who sold the phone they had no reason to search Gizmodo's stuff. Gizmodo very publicly admitted to paying for the phone so if they consider that theft they didn't need to search Gizmodo's stuff because they had a confession. But this quote drives me CRAZY... "Initially it's just a theft investigation," Wagstaffe said. "But ultimately could it lead to more? That's going to depend on what they learn. That's why they would like to be able to look at the computer and interview everybody that they can so they can determine the extent of what's involved." So if you think someone might be guilty of a generic crime that you can't even specify it's ok to seize their stuff? If that's the case can't they just say "That guy looks like a criminal" and then go and search his house for proof that he is? Total BS