California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Daggs, 133 Cal.App.4th 361, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 649 (Cal. App. 2005):
It is well established that a search and seizure of abandoned property is not unlawful because no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in property that has been abandoned. The question whether property is abandoned is an issue of fact, and the court's finding must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 279, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532, 6 P.3d 193.) Defendant asserts that, in this case, the substantial evidence standard does not apply because he raises only an issue of law, based upon what he asserts were undisputed facts. He argues that the undisputed fact that he accidentally left his cell phone at Walgreen's, and would have reclaimed it had he not feared arrest, compels the legal conclusion that he did not voluntarily discard the phone, and therefore he did not abandon it, but merely "lost it." It is unnecessary to resolve defendant's contention that he is entitled to de novo review because we would reach the same conclusion under either standard: Defendant abandoned the cell phone when he left it unattended in a public place of business, at the scene of a crime, fled, and made no attempt to reclaim it.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.