The Guardian tells us about a serious police raid in California:

California police have taken six computers and other items from the house of Jason Chen, the editor of the gadget blog Gizmodo who appeared on a video on the site showing off a lost Apple iPhone prototype which, it transpired, had been bought from a middleman for about $5,000.

The search was carried out last Friday evening, but Gizmodo only revealed that it had happened on Monday evening. Chen was not present when the police entered the house.

The police seizure, which would have been the decision under the criminal code of California of the district attorney for San Mateo – and not Apple – may turn into a test of the US "shield law" for journalists, which allows them to protect their sources. The New York Times reported last Saturday that "charges would most likely be filed against the person or people who sold the prototype iPhone, and possibly the buyer."

The lost iPhone was a prototype of the new model that Apple’s chief executive Steve Jobs is expected to announce this June, sporting a higher-definition screen and ceramic casing.

Question. Where is the crime here? Why is the state lunging in?

By all accounts the iPhone prototype was lost, not stolen.

And, as any fule kno, it’s no offence to handle stolen goods if the goods concerned aren’t stolen.

Instapundit has some learned thoughts:

At common law, there’d be an action to recover the property in replevin, and perhaps an action for trespass to chattels or conversion. But there would be no crime, and no cops crashing in and seizing computers.

Replevin. There’s a doctrine.

Instapundit reader Scott Benger:

I am not a lawyer, but it seems pertinent to me to include in this discussion Apple’s treatment of its customers whose i-phones are stolen. Apple encourages the theft of i-phones by refusing to discontinue itunes service to those phones reported as stolen. The stolen phone can be enrolled in itunes service by the thief even though the owner provides a police report of the theft. My sympathies for the Apple company in the loss of their prototype run very very thin.

Guilt comes in all shapes and sizes.

Maybe California should look at other wheezing parts of its justice system before wasting money on things like this?