If you follow tech news at all, you’re no doubt aware of the leak of the next-generation iPhone, a story that has been a big deal of late.  Well, that story just took a seriously troubling turn.

Last Friday at approximately 9:45 PM Pacific Time, Gizmodo editor Jason Chen arrived from a night out with his wife, only to find that members of California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) had broken down the door of his house and were executing a search warrant (issued in San Mateo county superior court at 7:00 PM Pacific) at his home.  According to an account by Chen, he was also subjected to a physical search for any weapons.

In the end, four computers, two servers, an iPhone, a Motorola Droid, mass storage media (thumbdrives, external hard drives), and personal identity info were seized.  Included in the information seized was a letter from Gawker Media COO Gaby Darbyshire noting the search warrant was invalid under California’s shield laws, as Chen is a journalist under Gawker’s employ.

In a letter to the Detective that signed off on the inventory of property seized under the search warrant, Darbyshire notes that under the California Penal Code, the property should never have been seized, with other experts chiming in that it is also in violation of United States federal law.  In light of the shield law defense put forward by Gawker, the search has come to a bit of a pause while the District Attorney’s office considers the defense, in light of reasons put forward by attorneys for Gawker/Gizmodo.

As to why the raid was executed when the Shield Law defense was possible, a spokesperson in the District Attorney’s office stated that the prosecutor in the case believed that the shield law defense did not apply in this case.  The spokesperson had conceded that the pause of an investigation to explore a shield law defense after evidence had been seized was rather unusual.  Whatever the reason the prosecutor had for believing the defense did not apply, the way events have unfolded gives the appearance that there were variables that were not considered when the raid was executed.

All of this has brought up the debate about whether bloggers are actually journalists.  There is a precedent in California to say that this is the case (as noted in a note by Darbyshire), and some acceptance of the general notion is found in other jurisdictions further afield.

I’m not a lawyer, but it appears to me that there’s a couple of things potentially wrong in this scenario.  Yes, the fact that Gizmodo paid for the leaked iPhone poses a problem, but there’s no reason why a seizure of computer equipment from a journalist was required when it’s been noted a subpoena would have been sufficient.  Was it appropriate for Gizmodo to pay for the phone? Not really.  Was it appropriate for a raid and seizure of equipment from a journalist on the story to be seized? Same answer.

Apple got their iPhone back.  Why are we breaking down doors and raiding people’s houses over it?