I think your first paragraph is a sensible observation. Your concept of special rights to lost property residing in the bar owner, or by extension, to the landowner on whose land a lost object or treasure trove is discovered, is misplaced. This concept can trace its origin back to biblical times through the Code Justinian, and it formed a part of the Continental Civil Code (the most applied legal system in the world), and the Common Law of England. In Santa Clara, California in 2010, however, a different law applies. In fact, there are two systems, which while compatible, are significantly different, and should not be conflated. The first system, that which metes out criminal penalties to transgressors, is embodied in the California Penal Code, which requires that a finder of lost or mislaid valuables (unlike the European model, California law makes no distinction), to have taken "reasonable and just" steps to locate the true owner and to return the found object to him. If a finder keeps the property (i.e., exercises dominion and control over it in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the true owner) without fulfilling this duty, the law considers him to be a thief, and subject to punishment by the state (and, curiously, to a civil lawsuit by the owner as well who may recover a multiple of the value of the thing--precisely as provided in the laws of of the ancients). As earlier observed, turning the property over to the bar owner, or promptly turning it over to the police, would certainly be sufficient to avoid a criminal charge. As a practical matter, you are absolutely correct that the owner is more likely to inquire of the bar than of the police, and any finder who would bring the object to the police would as a matter of common sense let the bar owner know what he found and suggest that he refer any inquiries to the police precinct where he had delivered the goods. I imagine the police might also contact the bar as part of the discharge of their statutory duty to attempt to locate the owner. Similarly, the police receiving an iPhone may attempt to contact the owner by availing themselves of the data on the phone, as you suggest. (In Santa Clara county that assumption may be more justified than elsewhere.) This is no different from the police locating the owner of a lost diamond ring by examining it for jeweler's marks, or of a lost briefcase by examining its contents. Surely delivering found property to the police department is a reasonable and just means of attempting to locate the true owner, and would be in compliance with the criminal system of laws.
The other system of laws applicable to this situation is codified in the California Civil Code. This body of law is not concerned about theft or sending people to jail, but rather with establishing the ownership of found goods.
The second system that applies in modern-day California, is detailed in the Civil Code of California. You can read the assembled lost property sections here:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/civ/2080-2080.10.html
As you see, there are, unlike in the Continental Civil Code and the English Common Law, no special rights accorded to the owner of the real estate where property is found. As charming as I find the nice distinctions between lost, mislaid, and hidden property, these are largely foreign concepts to American law outside of Louisiana, which explains why one of our colleagues was unable to find California case law referring to them. (Interestingly, some of these ancient concepts do live on in maritime and salvage law, and their echoes can also be heard in the laws of some U.S. jurisdictions that make a distinction between property found in the public areas of a store and that found in the "employees only" areas). Accordingly, if the true owner is not found through the statutory process, it is the finder who will acquire legal title to it, not the owner of the realty on which it was found. Presumably the lawmakers thought that such an outcome would provide some additional incentive to people who find valuables in places of public accommodation to report their finding, since compliance with this law could result in the finder owning the object; a law awarding unclaimed valuables to the proprietor, conversely, might encourage less scrupulous finders to silently appropriate them.
As fascinating as all this is to me, and perhaps to one or two others, the fact remains that under no civilized system of laws would the reported conduct of the finder of the test iPhone be condoned; as you say, he is a thief.
