You have to read pretty far down into the article (which most obviously don't, as pro publica well knows) to learn that the 16 year old citizen was a passenger in an automobile being driven by his father, who was/is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. The ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT father refused to pull the vehicle over for ICE and instead led the LEOs on a vehicular HOT PURSUIT. The 16 year old was FILIMING the hot pursuit as it was occurring with his cell phone. Therefore his cell phone was EVIDENCE of a CRIME which was lawfully confiscated by the LEOs.

As to why the cell phone ended up in a vending machine, we are not told, but in all likelihood since the kid was 16 he needed to be accompanied by his PARENT OR GUARDIAN to retrieve it when ICE was done with it. Since that's not going to happen because his PARENT is an ILLEGAL ALIEN who committed a FELONY by leading ICE on a vehicular HOT PURSUIT, the phone was likely deemed "abandoned property."

In point of fact we do are not even told who was the lawful OWNER of the phone. There is no claim that the 16 year old was the lawful OWNER of the phone anywhere in the article.

Is this REALLY the BEST YOU CAN DO???

JFC.