Based on [the affidavit’s] recitation of the facts, this Court can only conclude that Rivers abandoned the phone. As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “the test of abandonment is an objective one under which intent may be inferred from words spoken, acts done, and other objective facts.” United States v. Wider, 951 F.2d 1283, 1285 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). By leaving the cell phone outside, Rivers as surely abandoned it as he did the handgun that was ultimately recovered. See id. at 1285–86 (holding that abandonment occurred when a suspect “place[d] a brown paper bag on some steps and walk[ed] away from the bag up the steps toward the street.”). This Court recognizes that it only has one version of events, which have been presented ex parte. Nevertheless, the Court can only rule on a warrant application based upon what is presented to it. In light of that, the only conclusion that the Court can reach is that Rivers abandoned the phone.Because Rivers abandoned the cell phone, Officer Wright had a right to search it. . . . [N]o warrant is needed to search it and the Application is therefore moot.
March 24, 2014 at 6:02 AM EDT