San Francisco cops go undercover in bid to halt Apple iPhone thefts
San Francisco Police Capt. Joe Garrity compares the strategy to cutting the head off of a snake. "If they steal the phone but can't sell it, there's no market," he says. But others complain of entrapment. Not surprisingly, the main complaints come from the public defender's office. One such statement comes from Chesa Boudin, a San Francisco public defender who argues that, "You're basically creating crime or luring people to commit crimes."
not take no for an answer from a potential buyer. 20 year old Robert Tester ended up paying $20 for an Apple iPhone hawked by the undercover cop because the officer said that he needed money to buy Christmas presents for his daughter. The charges were dropped, but the arrest caused Tester to miss work and he claims it has caused him psychological injury. Tester is suing the NYPD and the City for $150,000.
The strategy does come close to crossing over a gray line, but police feel it is something they have to do to try to slow down what has become an epidemic in New York. If not for Apple iPhone related robberies, the crime rate in New York City would have been down last year. To make the arrest valid, officers must remember to tell buyers that the phones they are selling have been stolen. The usual story given by the undercover cop is that the devices were lifted from a nearby Apple Store.
Besides the questionable legality concerning some of the arrests, another problem that has arisen is the number of Apple iPhones that become lost in the shuffle. The units given by Apple to the cops are loaners. A few times, the cops have turned over an iPhone to a buyer and the latter managed to run off with the handset, uncaught. This thought doesn't escape Capt. Garrity, who yells at his undercover team as they prepare to head out for an evening of busting buyers of stolen Apple iPhones. "Try not to lose the fucking phones!," Garrity screams out as the cops head to their squad cars.
source: HuffingtonPost via TUAW
4. HASHTAG (unregistered)
You can make a huge profit off those them. Lol.
9. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Let's think, thieves steals not only iPhones, but for some reasons PhoneArena.com publishes only iPhone theft stories, hm... iteresting why??? (rhetorical question) ;)
16. lyndon420 (Posts: 3254; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
This is a phone site. Don't expect murders and car jackings to make it into any articles here.
18. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Seems that you missed a point of my rhetorical question. I mean that thieves steals not only iPhones, but other phones also, but for some reasons PhoneArena.com publishes only iPhone theft stories and thats why it looks a bit strange when each month PhoneArena.com publishes few new theft stories and always with iPhone, it looks like indirect propaganda which advertises how popular is iPhone.
2. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Wait, I thought we can't say bad words in PhoneArena.
And Alan F. said a bad word, where is it? All you have to do is to read the article until almost the end, then you'll know what I mean! :P
8. buccob (Posts: 2336; Member since: 19 Jun 2012)
I guess it does not matter if its a quote...
10. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Alan F. just quoted what Garrity screamed out.
13. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
I know, but it is still a bad word! :)
3. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Honestly, I just think this is an excuse by said cops to hang out in the Castro area of old San Fran'.
Besides, anyone knowingly buying a stolen sh€€p phone is doing a very baaa-haaa-haaaaaad thing and deserves to be iMpriSoned. IMHO
6. teerex42 (Posts: 197; Member since: 14 Jun 2012)
Who would want to steal any icrap's lmao!!!!!!! If u r going to steal any phone it would be an android phone, especially the new Samsung Galaxy S4 that's out!!!!!
7. chaoticrazor (Posts: 2347; Member since: 28 Aug 2012)
why? you do realise idiot iphones have high resale and are still sought after. there easy to shift and sell
android phones not so much.
21. Daftama (Posts: 609; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
They thing new is better lol icrap 4s still has a better vaule than s4 or just about the same lol
12. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
Itheft are so stupid. And another reason not too own a iphone too many thefts out there.
15. Aeires (unregistered)
Chicago has been having similar problems on the L trains. Thieves spot iUsers by their white earbuds, stand out and is easily spotted as targets.
17. TheMan (Posts: 448; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
I find it noteworthy that it was Apple providing the phones. For years, consumers have been complaining that the carriers do little about smartphone theft. Some believe that AT&T, et al, may turn a blind eye to it because theft increases sales.
Either way, I'm glad it's being done.
19. Penny (Posts: 1616; Member since: 04 Feb 2011)
I'm all for performing sting operations like this because it greatly reduces the market for such crimes. However, as far as the notion of entrapment is concerned, I would say that the penalty for the people that get stung should be a fine rather than an arrest and jail time. I think it would be much easier to rationalize a fine, and much easier to argue that it isn't really entrapment. (Not to mention that jails are overcrowded, and I'd rather have dangerous criminals in there than fairly functional functional citizens that just got tempted by a shady deal on a gadget.)
20. MyJobSux (Posts: 87; Member since: 01 Apr 2012)
I really dont think the manufactuer and carrier do enough to prevent theft. So Apple donates a few phones, the article says their "loaners" so if the cops lose them in a sting, their out the cost of the phone. So Apple isnt really "donating" anything.
Phone carriers and retailers could track phones via serial number and refuse to activate phones that are stolen or lost without the customer visiting a brick and mortar to verify they are the owner.
Its just like with credit cards and checks. Retailers dont want to ask for a photo ID. Its all the same deal. They dont want to complicate the sale so they will take the risk of fraud, they consider fraud acceptable and common place in buisness.
When fraud happens the only one that wins is the criminal. The bank will give the patron their money back, the bank will not pay the retailer and the retailer writes off the loss as a cost of doing buisness. The retailer is left with the responsibility of filing a report to have authorities track down the criminal. Since the retailer writes it off, the criminal just moves onto the next victem without incident.
Things are the way they are because retailers and the manufactuer dont truely care. If someone steals your phone, you get a new one. The retailer might luck out and you will just buy one or insurance will cover it for you. The manufacter wins out because thats another device sold, doesnt matter why it was sold, its sold and their happy.
Think of it in terms like this. A gun and ammunition manufactuer makes money if their product is used to hunt, defend the rights and freedoms of a country or perform a drive by shooting that kills innocent children. They make money reguardless. I support the right to bear arms, dont think I dont, I just used this to make a blunt point.