Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

It's not clear what you mean by "officially declared lost" - by whom? why do you think this is a fact?

Theoretically, an item could be stolen first, then "lost" I suppose, then received by someone else; later "losing" (losing possession of) would not negate original theft if I am understanding what you're asking. In other words if you steal a car, then leave it somewhere (abandon it or otherwise lose possession, voluntarily or otherwise) it can still be categorized as "a stolen vehicle" and you could still be charged with theft - your actions can still be interpreted to permanently deprive the owner of its use. Does it make sense?

For me, there's not enough information here to answer intelligently. Try again with more details.

the issue would be more whether the person (charged with RSP) knew it had been stolen, not whether there was an intervening period of having been "lost" or abandonment of possession. I hope that helps. Good luck!

"How" is irrelevant. You'll get your answers about what and why they did things, but only when your attorney gets the discovery files in court at your arraignment. Once you have all the pleadings and police reports, then your attorney can determine if there are grounds for evidence suppression or other motions, or defenses to use in the case. Without knowing all those factors, any opinion would be pure speculation. If serious about hiring counsel to help in this, and if this is in SoCal courts, feel free to contact me. I've been doing these cases for many years.