14 DAY TRIAL // The Gizmodo leak that subsequently resulted in police seizing property from Editor-in-Chief Jason Chen’s home is making headlines again, this time with the Gawker-owned site agreeing to provide materials deemed relevant to the case by a court appointee. Authorities are now looking to find out if the prototype iPhone 4 was actually just forgotten in a bar (as the original story goes), or was stolen.
On July 16, San San Mateo Superior Court Judge Clifford Cretan reportedly granted an application by the San Mateo County D.A.'s office to withdraw the controversial warrant it obtained to search the house of Gizmodo.com journalist Jason Chen. The Electronic Frontier Foundation provides a scan of the document in question, and touts the D.A.'s withdrawal of the April 23rd warrant as being a positive step. The document (available for download in PDF format here) reads:
“GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE: upon application of Chris Feasel, Deputy District Attorney for the County of San Mateo, and with the consent of Thomas J. Nolan of Nolan, Armstrong & Barton, LLP, counsel for Jason Chen and Gizmodo.com, it is hereby ordered that the search warrant issued by this Court on April 23, 2010, authorizing the search of 40726 Greystone Terrace, Fremont, be withdrawn.
All items Seized shall be returned forthwith to Gizmodo.com and Jason Chen through their counsel, Thomas J. Nolan of Nolan, Armstrong & Barton, LLP, after inspection of the documents provided by MR. Chen, by and through counsel, Thomas J. Nolan, and upcon the satisfaction of the investigating agency in the warrant and subsequent proceedings, Further, the parties involved shall waive all authenticity and foundational objection in any future proceedings regarding any documents found or discovered between the parties.
The images returned to counsel shall remain sealed and in the possession of counsel until such time as necessary, or upon application to the Court with due notice of all of the parties involved.” In April, the warrant-backed search of Chen's home was believed by many to have been illegal as it violated California Penal Code section 1524(g)'s prohibition against the issuance of warrants for "unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public."