Police in California have captured computers belonging to the editor of a gadget blog who was involved in procurement and purchase of an iPhone prototype. The editor of the blog admitted himself buying of the prototype after paying about $5,000 to an unknown person for the next generation device that is alleged to be left out in a bar by an Apple employee. Editor Jason Chen published photographs and videos of the phone last week. According to law authorities he must have violated a California law covering the appropriation of stolen property for personal benefit. The phone was lost by 27-year-old Apple software engineer Gray Powell.

Mr Chen told media that he and his wife while returning from dinner on Friday night find police searching for their home. “The officers had a computer and were cataloguing all the items they took from my house. They told me they were here for a few hours already and had to break the front door open because I wasn’t at home,” he said that way. The Gizmodo have published the search warrant documents online that according to them have been used to commit a felony. Apple wrote to Gizmodo last week telling them to return the prototype handset that is complied with. The Techblog has already published details of the next-generation iPhone, which would be going to be released this year.

As told by Gizmodo, the new features of the phone include front-facing video camera and an improved camera with larger lens and a flash. The phone is rather thinner with improved battery life. According to some experts Gizmodo has done a sin by handling stolen goods and as also referred about the clear state laws as what to do with a found property. Gizmodo tech blog has ownership of Gawker Media and its chief operating officer, Gaby Darbyshire, told that he hopes about the immediate return of Mr Chen’s computers and servers. “Under both state and federal law, a search warrant may not be validly issued to confiscate the property of a journalist,” she wrote in a letter to San Mateo County authorities on Saturday.

“It is abundantly clear under the law that a search warrant to remove these items was invalid. The appropriate method of obtaining such materials would be the issuance of a subpoena,” as told by Ms. Darbyshire.

gizmodo1