Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's sort of the part that John (and many other journalists, comedic or not) glossed over: the whole theft of property thing. It's not about recovering the phone, because this isn't Apple's civil suit. This is a criminal investigation. And while Apple may have been instrumental to getting it started so promptly, it's really out of their hands at this point. I think that many journalists are sort of waltzing ar…
I am trying to figure out the criminal aspect of this as (to me) it makes no sense to search the guy who returned the product but it possibly could make sense to investigate the guy that "found" it. (In his story the phone was in a silicon case so you could not see the design). If I return someones' wallet the police don't bust down my door, so what (apart from the "Apple") is different here?
That doesn't sound like criminal activity to you?
As for why they busted down Chen's door, specifically? No idea. I'm pretty sure that was not Apple's idea. If it was, we have bigger problems than how to interpret CA theft and shield laws.