Dropped Phone, Not Dropped Rights: Ninth Circuit on Abandonment and iPhones

United States v. Hunt, 23-2342 (9th Cir. 2025)

Holding: The Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction, rejecting both a Fourth Amendment suppression motion and a recusal motion. The court ruled Hunt did not abandon his iPhone when he dropped it after being shot, but his Fourth Amendment claim still failed because agents later obtained a proper warrant.
Importance: First major Ninth Circuit opinion clarifying how the abandonment doctrine applies to cellphones: courts must distinguish between abandoning the device itself and abandoning the digital data inside.
Limits: The court left room for future cases to refine how long police may hold seized devices before seeking a warrant and how abandonment applies in less extreme circumstances (e.g., intentional discarding).

2017 Shooting: Hunt was shot five times while on his iPhone in a parking lot. He dropped the phone and his Gucci satchel. His girlfriend grabbed the bag (later found to contain guns) but left the iPhone. Police later recovered the phone near bushes and booked it into evidence.
Separate Drug Probe: Years later, a fentanyl overdose investigation in Portland pointed back to Hunt. Surveillance and informant tips linked him to drug trafficking. A raid on his residence found pills and guns; Hunt was caught barricading himself in a bathroom.
iPhone Evidence: In 2020, federal agents obtained a warrant to search the black iPhone from the shooting scene. Data inside linked Hunt to ongoing drug activity.
Recusal Motion: Hunt argued Judge Immergut should have recused because she had been U.S. Attorney when his unrelated 2005 case was prosecuted. She denied the motion, stating she had no personal involvement or memory.
Conviction: Hunt was convicted of drug distribution, conspiracy, firearms possession, and money laundering. He appealed.

Did the trial judge err by refusing to recuse herself based on her prior role as U.S. Attorney during Hunt’s earlier prosecution?
Did police violate Hunt’s Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and later searching his black iPhone? Specifically:
- Did Hunt abandon the phone (and its data)?
- Was the delay in searching the phone unreasonable?

Recusal: No abuse of discretion. The prior prosecution was 15+ years earlier, unrelated to the present case, and the judge had no personal involvement or memory.
Fourth Amendment: Hunt did not abandon his privacy interest in the iPhone or its contents — dropping it while being shot showed no intent to discard. Still, no violation occurred because officers obtained a warrant and held the phone reasonably as evidence.

Federal judges must step aside if impartiality could reasonably be questioned (28 U.S.C. § 455).
Court contrasted with Arnpriester (judge cannot preside over same case prosecuted under their watch).
Here, the gap of time, lack of factual overlap, and lack of personal involvement meant no reasonable basis for questioning impartiality.

Traditional rule: abandoning property = no Fourth Amendment protection.
New twist: digital devices carry massive amounts of intimate data (Riley v. California).
Court: must separately assess intent to abandon the physical phone vs. the data inside. Dropping a phone in a shootout ≠ intent to abandon.
Distinction: in Fisher (9th Cir. 2022), defendants intentionally left devices in an attic and sold the house — clear abandonment. Hunt’s loss was accidental, not voluntary.

Seizure lawful at inception: phone near shooting scene could have evidentiary value.
Retention was reasonable: treated as lost property, no owner came forward, and later a proper warrant was obtained before searching.
Balancing test favored the government given minimal intrusion and legitimate investigative interests.

Phones ≠ wallets. Courts recognize a heightened privacy interest in digital data. Dropping or losing a phone doesn’t automatically mean forfeiting its contents.
Abandonment requires intent. Courts will look for clear evidence someone meant to discard both device and data, not just lost it in chaos.
Police still need warrants. Even if a device seems abandoned, a warrant is the safest path for accessing data.
Recusal challenges need strong facts. A judge’s past government role isn’t enough without a clear link to the current case.

For training and informational purposes only. Not legal advice.