DDA Steve Wagstaffe is protecting R.E.A.C.T. Task force warrant.

San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Clifford Cretan Unseals Warrant

"The immediacy has passed,"


Right On

Looks like San Mateo County's Next District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe just got caught in yet another LIE.

"Prosecutors had argued that the warrant information should be not be released because it would reveal the identities of confidential informants who were working with investigators. During today's hearing, Cretan said there were no informants and many of the people named in the warrant, including the person who found the phone, had already been publicly named."

Welcome to San Mateo County

Interesting article about this:

Web Link

Stephen Wagstaffe actually IS (according to him) investigating the police report falsification issue, much in the same sense that a fox investigates whether a hen house is okay. I have commented before that this is highly inappropriate. He he also confabulated about attorney general opinions that support there being no conflict of interest in this investigation, but when confronted with public records requests to examine them, retracted that statement.

It was announced today that the judge unsealed the REACT warrant. There will be transparency after all!!!
This is wonderful news for everyone because it is an example of exactly what is so crucially
needed to re-establish balance in the way healthy government process is supposed to work.
It not only emphasizes the important role of Judicial Over Sight--but in this case, unlike Mr. Bothan's, it serves to protect the 4th estate--a free an independent press.
Let us all hope, that our next District Attorney eventually learns to appreciate the true value, to all of us, of the lessons learned from this incident.

Just a note: Not one Newspaper or Media supplier from San Mateo County was named as a party interested in getting the warrant unsealed.

This was a great victory for the public's right to know," said Roger Myers, an attorney representing media organizations including the Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, Wired.com and CNET. "And specifically the rights to know about the evidence and the information that was available to law enforcement and to the court when a search warrant was issued to search the home and seize the computer of a journalist."

Can anyone confirm for me the version of this story that I have heard twice now that--
The i-phone device had already been returned voluntarily to Apple and the issue completely resolved BEFORE the DA sent the REACT task force to break down this guys door and haul off his computers?
There sure seem to be a lot of unnecessary and excessive force issues that have managed to come to light lately--despite the massive efforts made to obfuscate them. The press editorBothan arrest blunder comes to mind.
Yet another sideways means of sending fear through out the press and with out the public's right to know.
This guy is fortunate that no one decided to "discover" pornography on any of his equipment as a coup de grace.
And we are all very lucky for this Judge's decision not to protect the DA's bad calls in every instance.
Good job and big Thank you for Judge Cretan.

Freedom of the press. That is confirmed.

Looks like on 4/19/2010 Jason Chen returned the phone to Bruce Sewell (Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary) for Apple. Thats 5 days before Search Warrant was issued. Search Warrant omitted the words Journalist, News, reporter etc.

Welcome to San Mateo County

There may be interesting journalism that can be accomplished via the commonality between the iPhone search warrant issue (possible infringement on journalistic freedom) and the Bothun issue. I am very sympathetic to Apple's position on this issue having run a technology company myself. The trade secrets are the crown jewels. But breaking into journalist's homes over what they've published is an incredibly slippery slope if you stop to think about it. I agree with the D.A. that journalists cannot commit crimes, but in some sense the crime really can never have to do with what they've written about here in the U.S.A.

To all the do-gooders and self-righteous law abiding citizens out there....
Why didn't Chen turn the phone into the owner's of the business where he found it so it could possibly have been returned to its rightful owner once he realized it was missing? Sounds like theft to me....unless you all follow the rule of 'finder's keepers.'
Sure would have saved the tax payers a bundle..... Just a thought.

He didn't find the phone. The person who found the phone sold it to his newspaper.