“Mangione’s lawyers contend the items should be excluded because police didn’t have a search warrant for the backpack. Prosecutors contend the search was legal and that officers eventually obtained a warrant.”
You are hearing about this in pretrail because lawyers are arguing about what should be admitted as evidence.
On body-worn camera video played in court, Wasser was heard saying she wanted to check the bag for bombs before removing it from the McDonald’s. Despite that concern, she acknowledged in her testimony Monday that police never cleared the restaurant of customers or employees.
Loved this part. This would be even funnier if someone who was in the restaurant at the time tries to sue them too for putting them in danger.
Not just "more of" it was literally a marketing phrase for the LAPD to try and rehab their image. And as we all know marketing works, especially since it's been so widely engrained into public consciousness.
One would think it would hold legally that if the officer credibly believed there to be explosives, then they were endangering those nearby by choosing not to evacuate, and if not, then the defense could argue they didn't have probable cause to search, thereby voiding the later warrant?
I'm not an expert but a) wouldn't you need some kind of probable cause to search for a bomb? and b) if they genuinely thought there was a bomb (aka had probable cause), would they just go digging around in the bag? Or would they call the bomb squad?
ETA to clarify, the query is about the wisdom of digging around in a bag saying "gotta make sure there isn't a bomb in here" as is described in the article, and if you're saying you're looking for a bomb but actually just going for a dig, doesn't that suggest that they do not, actually have probable cause, because who tf would be like "there could be a bomb in here, I'ma stick my face in it."
There was a time after the Atlanta olympics bombing where every unattended backpack led to shutting down a city block to check for a bomb, but I guess these days they’re just tough enough to take the hit.
I lived two blocks away from the Nashville Christmas bombing, and that weekend every time a drunk bachelorette left their purse on the sidewalk, police would get called to assess bomb threats and evacuate apt buildings and hotels.
Firing Range Instructor: Since you've attended public schools, I'm going to assume you're already proficient with small arms. So, we'll start you off with something a little more advanced.
hands Bart a grenade launcher
From the Simpsons, when Bart and Lisa go to military school. This was back in the 1997.
Crazy thing about Columbine is that the guns were supposed to be a tool to herd the kids to the evac points. Since the shooters went to the school they knew where the muster locations were. So they loaded their cars with home made propane tank bombs and filled their cars with a shit ton of shrapnel, then parked next to the locations that the kids would be mustering after evacuating.
The bombs were set to go off about 30 minutes after they started shooting. They reasoned that 30 minutes was enough time for the news to get choppers in the air and get a live feed of the school going. So they could get a live shot of the bombs going off broadcast to the country. Lucky they suck at bomb making and they didn't go off.
I’m not an expert … but if you suspected a bomb or explosives - would you not separate yourself from the bag and clear the area as opposed to opening it up?
Isn’t that standard protocol or rational thinking? (Of right cops…SMH)
Don’t move, shake, or open the suspicious package.
Wasser resumed her search after an 11-minute drive to the police station and almost immediately found the gun and silencer — the latter discovery prompting her to laugh and exclaim “nice,” according to body-worn camera footage. Wasser said the gun was in a side pocket that she hadn’t searched at McDonald’s.
Even better - if there had been a bomb in the side pocket, they would have missed it during that search and brought it back inside police station. Again.
“Wasser told another officer she didn’t want to repeat an incident in which another Altoona officer had inadvertently brought a bomb to the police station.”
Apparently they’d already had issues and this is what they came up with. If it’s a lie, it’s a bad one. If it’s the truth, the officer also admitted they didn’t clear the McDonald’s first.. the negligence on display is not a good look.
I'd argue that they didn't clear the McD denonstates they clearly didn't think there was a bomb in there. But what do I know? I'm just some guy on the Internet.
Eh, if there was a bomb in the bag (and no, I don't think they thought there was) then it isn't likely set to explode when you open the bag. Most bombs are pretty primitive and only go off when set off or mishandled.
There are exceptions to the rule, such as Terry frisks, a search incident to arrest, and inventorying after an arrest… there’s also the inevitable discovery rule.
Terry frisks just require a reasonable suspicion but I don’t believe its scope has been expanded to nearby personal effects. SITA and inventorying require PC for the arrest but not necessarily for the search. For inevitable discovery the state has to show that the evidence would have inevitably been found through legal means
Inevitable discovery tends to apply more so toward finding a dead person and what not, right? Like you "accidentally" search the trunk of a car unlawfully and find a dead body. It can be used as evidence under the inevitable discovery exception. But if you just find a kilo of drugs, the evidence isn't admissible because the search was unlawful. Right? That's the way I believe it was taught "back in the day"
If he was already being arrested -- he was, he had a suspected forged ID -- then his backpack was going to be searched for weapons. That's entirely standard practice. It's a search incident to arrest.
They got a warrant after the fact so that they can show that a judge has agreed that the search is constitutional even if the original charge is not pursued by the prosecutor. Which it may not be if the forged ID is not a federal charge or if the McDonald's employee was mistaken.
There is a whole legal doctrine about this called “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.
A) they would need probable cause unless it was in “plain view”. If the search was done prior to acquiring a warrant and there was no probable cause/consent/evidence in plain view, defense could try to keep it out by saying that the entirety of the contents found in the bag were “fruit of the poisonous tree”.
B) that would be an argument that defense could try to make.
I mean, you're wrong. "Plain View" is one exception to the warrant requirement. Another is "search incident to arrest" - police are allowed to search a person and their belongings if that person is under arrest. Assuming the arrest is supported by probable cause, then the results of that search are admissible.
There are a lot of other exceptions as well - even if the search was illegal at the time, the contents of the search could still be admissible under the "inevitable discovery" rule - e.g. when the search is a foregone conclusion then the timing of when a warrant is acquired becomes pretty irrelevant.
There are a lot of exceptions to the warrant requirement. Turns out 250 years of legal proceedings results in a lot of case law
It's not as cut and dry as you think. If the prosecution can successfully argue those items would have eventually been located as part of a legal search then it can be admitted as evidence.
As a lawyer, this exception is drilled into us during law school as a “don’t forget to end all 4th amendment analysis with this”. It’s a bs exception. You go through all this great analysis as to whether evidence should be excluded due to a possible violation of the 4th amendment, but you end every essay with “However, if the prosecution can prove that the Evidence would have been discovered through an eventual lawful search, it will not be excluded at trial.”
Edit: Guys, I’m not a criminal defense attorney. But because enough of you are saying that the search of the bag is unlawful, I’m not so sure about that. From what I can recall from law school (it’s been a while), a person’s bag can be an extension of a pat down search. A pat down is proper so long as there is reasonable suspicion that the person subject to the search is armed with weapons. Reasonable suspicion is a low bar and can be triggered through an anonymous tip. I’m assuming that the prosecution is going to argue that because the police were looking for someone who is known to be armed with a weapon, the search of the bag is lawful. However, the key distinction is that the police can’t look for drugs or other kinds of evidence—weapons only. So my guess is that the question is whether bullets count as “weapons” for the purpose of a terry search.
I don’t do criminal defense, but my take away from my crim law classes in law school was “holy shit the 4th amendment is basically worthless” after going through all the cases.
The general public really has no idea how ineffectual the 4th amendment is in many situations imo
But… how is the search justified to begin with? Police could go through anyone’s home if they chose and eventually find evidence befitting a crime and then get the warrant for the search, how is that circular logic allowed?
Edit: Thank you for all the responses with helpful information on how it works!
It'll all hinge on if the police had enough to outright arrest him, or get a search warrant, without considering the contents of the bag. If they did the bag would have been "searched incident to arrest" and inevitable discovery will kick in. If it's found that they were unable to secure a search warrant or arrest him independently of the contents of the bag, then that was an illegal search and the contents of the bag fruit of the poisonous tree.
I believe that's being looked into very carefully too. "Arrest" seems like a simple definition, but legally it can be an extremely complicated matter to sort out when it actually occurred. If it's determined he was still free to go at any time while they searched his stuff, then (IANAL) I think that would exclude the evidence. I heard there was also an argument being made that they essentially surrounded him and made it seem like he was not free to go, when he actually still was. Basically, forced him to submit to a search and questioning under the impression he was being detained, but before he was legally "detained". Again, it's a very complex area that can be looked at in a ton of different ways. With this case I imagine it's close to the point it will come down to the judge, and not a very clearly defined situation from the start
Let's say a man is pulled over for drunk driving. He was swerving, cop stops him, does a FST and he blows a .13, he's cuffed and arrested. He's a little aggro and the cop starts searching the car while he's in the car cooling down. Opening the trunk, he finds 10 kilos of heroin. There was no smell, nor did a dog alert. The car was not YET impounded, though it was going to be. The man is charged with possession, distribution, etc...
The lawyers would argue that without consent or a warrant, the search of the vehicle was unlawful and the evidence for what he's now being charged with (felony distribution of narcotics) is based on the 'fruit of the poison tree'. The prosecutors counter would be that since the man had committed a crime which led to his vehicle being impounded, and searching of an impounded vehicle is standard practice, that those drugs would have been found eventually, they're admissible.
Your home is different from a bag you're found with.
It's a preliminary search for weapons. The guy was wanted for murder, seen on camera with a suppressed pistol. Any officer could articulate the need to search for weapons.
He's seen as a modern day Robin Hood fighting back against an unjust system, so anything that might assist him in getting found not-guilty they're going to latch on.
Police had probable cause to detain him based on the description and the tip they got, and part of that is searching the guy for weapons since the guy they were looking for just shot someone on the street.
Presumably they don't get to use the evidence from the warrantless search to obtain the warrant. They have to independently develop the basis to obtain a warrant, they just don't have to have done that at the time.
They'd have to prove that finding the bullets wasn't the final straw that led to his arrest and the seizure of the backpack, right? If the defense can make a compelling argument that there was a decent chance Mangione would have been released along with the backpack, then the evidence is out...
You still appeal it, and hope that you win. Especially in major cases like this where the only limiting factors are what the law will even tenuously support and the court's time, you appeal everything you can reasonably (or in cases involving the illegal retention of national security documents, even and especially unreasonably) appeal.
Not illegal. He was arrested for having a Fake ID from NJ and giving a false name. Pursuant to the arrest, the searched his person for any dangerous items or contraband before booking him into jail to be processed. As part of that, they found the additional evidence that they used to get a complete search warrant.
Not quite, police can do a “Terry” stop and frisk a suspect and their possessions for any potential threats if they have reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous, like one would expect if you are detaining a shooting suspect.
Additionally the exclusionary rule that kicks out evidence that was illegally obtained has several exceptions that make the evidence admissible again, like the independent source doctrine or inevitable discovery rule.
Inevitable discovery. They were always going to search the bag he was arrested with. The officer did a quick search upon arresting to make sure the contents didn't pose an active threat.
For a cursory search of their person (not effects) at the time of detainment or arrest to determine if they have anything that can harm the officers or themselves, sure. Keep in mind the suspect was reported for having shot someone and deemed armed.
happens all the time in police interactions, police will argue they needed to do a basic search of his belongings to verify their safety his lawyers are going to argue they didnt have the right to do that thats what the judge is supposed to help them figure out what the move is, either its valid and will be permitted in court or it isnt and it wont be.
Especially given the context. If he was arrested for something like public urination and then officers found drugs in his bag, he would have a much better chance of arguing there was no need for them to search his bag without a warrant. He was the suspect in a high profile murder investigation that had a clear ideological motive (even if they didn't know the specifics yet). It was reasonable to think he might have had a bomb or something else dangerous in his bag.
The evidence is usually admitted, provided the police had probable cause. And here, the defense's argument is that they didn't. Let's say you get pulled over and the officer smells weed. That's probable cause for them to search the car. But if some random person calls and says they saw you with weed, that is not probable cause. So what happened here is that an employee called the police and said "this guy kind of looks like the one from TV". So police show up, detain him, search him, search his bag, find a loaded magazine, and arrest him.
They found bullets in the bag that he had with him in PA... despite them telling us days prior to his arrest that they found that bag left behind in Central Park full of Monopoly money.
They also say that they found the gun in his bag in PA... despite us all seeing the security video of the shooter uses a silencer/suppressor, and the gun they seized from his didn't have one...
They're not directly claiming it but that's the reason why these rules about warrants and chain of custody exist. If procedures aren't followed, then it's not a legal search and not legal evidence.
No, at least not yet. That would be a much higher burden of proof than what they are claiming: searching the bag to begin with was illegal because they did not have a warrant. They could try to argue the bullets were planted later but why do that if you can get them tossed out wholesale?
And to be clear they would need a warrant or probable cause to search his backpack, and per other reddit comments it seems the public defence is currently "a warrant was obtained later"
My problem is that they seperated him from his possessions, disappeared the bag, then made multiple different claims that they kept finding additional things in that bag.
Therefore there is a reasonable doubt that it should not be admitted into evidence.
Yeah, they kept finding things in that bag like a magician, I wouldn’t have been surprised if a flock of doves was also claimed to have flown out of the bag.
What you're talking about is chain of custody, which is important. However, so long as there is a cop saying "I had the bag at this time" and there's a string of cops all saying that such that who was in possession at any given moment is traceable, there are no chain of custody issues that would bar the contents of the bag from being admissible as a matter of law.
However, the jury can consider how convoluted the chain of custody is as an element of the weight of the evidence.
In other words, the contents of the bag are 100% admissible. The jury can decide that they don't like how it was handled and not put very much weight/credence on the contents of the bag when considering guilt.
This is all standard pretrial procedure too. Both sides argue whether X should be admitted as evidence or not and the judge decides whether to admit as evidence or throw it out.
Remember when that psycho swat cop murdered that innocent dude in a Vegas hotel hallway, and the cop’s lawyers successfully got his “you’re fucked” message written on his gun barred from the trial?
That was the cop that later sued his department for "disability" because he was traumatized by the backlash from the shooting of a guy with his pants around his ankles?
Same cop as the one who got rehired for a month on a desk job (despite being 'disabled') just so he could accrue enough time to qualify for a pension which is 3660 a month, for the rest of his life, updated for inflation because of the PTSD he got from murdering someone.
Remember there was a backpack that was found in Central Park the day of the shooting?
That was supposedly “the killer’s”?
…but there was nothing in it but a jacket.
Then the one he allegedly took with him magically has all this super incriminating stuff in it.
A second backpack inside main backpack. You get somewhere and ditch the main backpack and your jacket which is surely caught on camera. That's what I would do..
if I was planning this, I'd have no backpacks on if I was caught. I'm a little surprised that after all that planning, he had any evidence on him. All of my stuff would be in a burning trash can, and any firearm would have serial numbers scratched off and at the bottom of the Hudson.
Which is why it’s suspicious. Dude somehow evaded all but like 4 public cameras in New York, fled to Pennsylvania where the only trace of an item that was his other than the 3-4 pictures posted, was a ditched backpack with no evidence in it and was believed to be his. Only for the other backpack he has to be stuffed with all evidence?
After a phone call from a McDonald’s employee from 3 states over says “this looks like him.” (That was likely LEO and not McDonald’s worker) makes a call to the FBI and they swarm him in minutes.
I don’t recall any idea about where he’d possibly be, they didn’t suspect him to leave the state that quickly if at all. And if his plan was to not get caught why would you find all the evidence still on his person days after the manhunt in a separate state?? He had all the time in the world to walk through a forest preserve in Pennsylvania, step into the wooded areas, and dig 8 feet down and none of it would be found.
Unless the argument is that he wanted to be found, in which case, why the fuck did he leave the site/state of the crime?
None of it adds up. And especially hilarious that they failed to mirandize him in its entirety, and then had the largest perp walk of all time as a political stunt, only to effectively de-teeth the whole prosecution because now there’s just grounds that reek of having the case be tossed as a mistrial anyway. All while prosecutors are using it as a stepping stone to criminalize him before being tried and every single time news comes out about this case, it shows incompetence of Law Enforcement and illegal monitoring by the FBI.
This is my belief as well. I have a hard time believing a random McDonalds employee states away reported it. Maybe desperate for the reward and gullible, MAYBE. But these days with the flock cameras, facial recognition, and police state tracking of data and communication, it seems more likely it was a tip from a surveillance organization or tool that they don’t want revealed. They were desperate to catch this guy and make an example.
They could have offered some poor person 400-600 bucks instead of the 25k (50k?) reward and used a number spoofer with that area code or even spoofed that McDonald’s number altogether, and just had her act it out.
But again; it could totally be all as it’s been reported, it just really doesn’t seem all that believable as a story.
If you're putting that much forethought into carrying out an assassination, you'd probably have chosen a spot to dump the gun instead of just having it on you several days later in a random McDonalds.
They will probably claim the bag in central park was unrelated. The backpack didn't look particularly unique and a park with that much traffic it is perfectly reasonable that a random person left a random bag at a random place in the park completely unrelated to the case. And just at the time the police had nothing so they tried to talk up that bag to make it look like they at least had something.
Unless there was something other than a jacket and monopoly money, something that does tie it to the case, I wouldn't be surprised if that bag doesn't get brought up at all during the case. At most defense could try to bring it up for reasonable doubt but I think questioning chain of evidence around the bag he was found with is a better avenue for reasonable doubt.
The older V1 version of it, too. Doesn’t make it more or less valuable, just much less likely for one to own or to see someone wearing since it’s a rucksack-style bag uniquely marketed towards photographers, and the V1’s had been discontinued since 2019
It's impossible for me to believe that someone who killed someone and escapes, who seems so intelligent, is also someone who CARRIES EVIDENCE AROUND WITH HIM, for hours and days after committing a major crime?
Unless he was specificically trying to get caught, WHY THE FUCK would you carry around bullets and a manifesto? It seems so planted its insane.
Maybe he wasn’t trying to get caught, but was prepared if caught to make as big of a statement as possible. It’s not really that outlandish after murdering the CEO.
The inconsistencies from before the arrest to after are deafening.
Found a backpack along his retreat path the day of the shooting.
Said they tracked him coming up on a bus from Georgia.
Now saying neither of those are true and they found a gun with a ton of cash on him when they arrested him due to an unidentified McDonald's employee they don't have to pay a reward to..... And cash he claims he never had showed up in the bag during the arrest.
IMO they caught somebody on a camera in McDonald's who triggered a match on the server and showed up with a bag with cash and a gun to make sure they could get a conviction.
Better than letting other CEOs think the guy is still out there. They might have to think about their actions
They didn’t describe parallel construction- they described framing a patsy. Parallel construction would be if the NSA used arguably illegal and secret methods they didn’t want to disclose, but instead had someone call it in anonymously. I am not saying that is what happened, BTW.
It does if they found his location through clandestine means, which is what he mentions with seeing him on a camera, and it matching against his face. Since they can't really disclose that sort of thing, having someone call it in ends up working fine for them. That is 100 percent parallel construction.
You really think McDonald’s security cams are constantly scanning for facial recognition? Some random McDonald’s in PA does not have facial recognition on their security cameras.
I mean shit, with everything I’ve been learning about Flock recently, it seems more likely they just tagged him on the street somewhere and the McDonalds was a convenient place to trap him when they knew he’d sit for 10 minutes
The difference, and the simplest reason for the NRA not speaking about this case, is that nobody is using this case to try to say that gun rights for law abiding citizens should be restricted.
Yeah, there's really nothing in the context or discussion of this situation that has lead to any gun rights discussion at all, so there's not really anything for the NRA to speak against.
What, exactly, do you want the NRA to come out and say?
I can't think of anything they could actually say that wouldn't be skewed negatively, not in the context of using a firearm for assassination.
Either they get painted as hypocrites by shallow-minded people for condemning the illegal use of a gun or they get condemned as fanatics for supporting the illegal use of a gun. There isn't really a beneficial legal stance for them to take in this situation, especially when nobody's talking about using this situation as an excuse to attack gun rights anyways.
I’m also waiting for Ronald McDonald to speak on this. How long is mayor MCcheese going to let the hamburgler continue? We all know if it was grimace there would be a different toon.
The main question in my mind is whether he gave the fake ID over or if they found/took it from him. If he gave it over willingly then he wanted to be found and that was an arrestable offense that would have led to the search anyway.
I was under the impression that a fake ID isn’t inherently illegal cause it can be considered a “novelty” item, it’s only illegal when you try to use it for something. Don’t quote me on this though IANAL
Backpacks are generally included in the wingspan area for searches incident to arrest. If they are in the process of arresting him and the backpack was in his immediate area of control, New York v Belton would give clear justification for searching the backpack without a warrant. Where it gets fuzzy is the story the police gave, Mangione was already in handcuffs when the backpack was searched which probably falls to a judgement
The most recent developments in the Circuit Courts is to apply the reasoning behind Arizona v Gant to backpacks. In the third circuit which includes PA there's the case of US v Shakir which I believe would be controlling in the Mangione case; in that case they admitted a backpacks contents I to evidence, but applying the reasoning they used in that case would probably suggest it should be excluded n Mangiones case (assuming my understanding of the facts regarding the search are accurrate.) essentially, if it would be unreasonable to believe the suspect could access the backpack at the time of the search, then there is no exigency preventing an application for a warrant.
And give the photos of the scene even if he was not handcuffed he could not reach the bag as it was over a full body length away. Unless Mangione suddenly becomes Mr. Fantastic he could not reach his bag. There is zero reason the cops could not take the bag with them get a warrant to search it while he is being held and questioned further and searched it legally. I fully expect the court to rule the cops can do whatever they want because the entire state wants to make an example of this guy so the law will mean nothing to them but it seems clear to me at least this was an unlawful search.
They also said they suspected a bomb due to the weight of the backpack, but then proceeded to follow zero of the protocol laid out for when you suspect a bomb.
If they screwed up that fast, one suspects tampering. Once a warrant was obtained, more eyes would be on the backpack and a better chain of custody would be in place and documented. Arguing that evidence was planted is speculative at best, but it can't be excluded given the screwup. Be really interested to see how this goes. Of course the results will be just as controlled as any soccer game, but still interesting.
Joking aside, I've had a bullet turn up in the wash a couple of times, but never in a non-range bag. Clear pistol during a range trip, put the bullet in my pocket and forgot about it.
A bunch of Reddit Legal Experts in here that don’t know what Search Incident to Arrest means. Just because there’s a suppression hearing, doesn’t mean the argument has merit. It’s a procedural argument that any good lawyer would make.
Really can’t stand 95% of the people on this platform …
Additionally, no one seems to understand, or they are just skipping over that he provided a false ID. The cops ran it and discovered, oh gee lookie, it's not real.
Providing false identification to police. 18 Pa. C.S. § 4914
Misdemeanor of the Third Degree (M3)
Arrestable offense. They arrest him. Backpack is now subject to Search Incident to Arrest. There is zero chance this is going to be excluded.
I have a friend who defended himself in a similar case, but those little differences matter. My friend properly identified himself, and specifically stated multiple times that they didn't have consent to search his bags. He knew the law pretty well though(I mean obviously, as he defended himself in court while in jail)
There's a guy on reddit whose on a crusade against "San Francisco DA's" who thinks that every motion filed by defense attorneys is tantamount to "letting them go" and he gets angry that at the judge that a motion was filed.
Sadly, he's got 100s of thousands of followers (he's a bay area VC) and people follow his lead because they're not smart enough to inquire how the system works.
It’s important to realise that a significant portion of users on this site are literal children.
And now you can’t tell, as commenting is often anonymous. Which is fine, whatever, I just have to remind myself that I, myself, was once an Iamverysmart teenager online and probably posting dipshit comments on my hobbie forums, and that there’s a very real chance the guy I’m debating nuances of medical stuff with is an actual, literal child.
When you read comments on Reddit that you have an actual understanding of, for me medicine, for others engineering or law or finance or economics or whatever, you quickly realise that many of the commenters on this site have the absolute worst possible takes, and are so far off the mark it’s incredible. Unfortunately, first in best dressed with comments; and, as long as you sound like you know what you’re talking about, you’ll get upvoted and are suddenly the voice of authority on whatever issue. Try and correct and enjoy downvotes and being yelled at and even sent weird, creepy DMs that are clearly threatening and reddit won’t do anything about when reported.
We should scrutinise all comments with the some critical eye we do of those who are making wildly inaccurate claims we know to be untrue, because it’s our area.
Almost none of us are “legal experts” so how would anyone know that Your point is true, beyond your amplified conviction? Providing and requiring evidence is what redditors are always lacking.
They use facial recognition at the self service kiosk, and they dont like to make that well known. I still doubt there was a real 'mcdonalds employee' rhat called in
the United health care CEO Brian Thompson used an AI he knew for a fact shortchanged care to critically ill people, and he cut a whole lot of lives short doing that. He was a mass murderer and he stole peoples lives for profit.
Sometimes vigilante justice is the only justice available.
Its the fault of our badly designed justice system that we dodnt hold rich corporate murderers like thompson to criminal account. With those extenuating circumstances in mind I'd say Mangioni should have a statue erected in his honor regardless of whether he is convicted in this kangaroo court trial or not. Or multiple statues. And the health care companies should be made to pay for them.
“Mangione’s lawyers contend the items should be excluded because police didn’t have a search warrant for the backpack. Prosecutors contend the search was legal and that officers eventually obtained a warrant.”
You are hearing about this in pretrail because lawyers are arguing about what should be admitted as evidence.
So they searched, and then got a warrant?
The officer did an initial search of the bag for a bomb or weapons during the arrest.
They later submitted for a warrant and logged the contents of the bag as evidence.
Loved this part. This would be even funnier if someone who was in the restaurant at the time tries to sue them too for putting them in danger.
Damn, kind of wish I had been in the Altoona McD's that day so I could try to get the police department to pay off my debt
Unfortunately, not only is suing the police stupid difficult, you can't sue for "what ifs" ... no bomb, no case.
Even if there was a bomb… SCOTUS has long held that “To Serve and Protect” isn’t an actual obligation, but more of a slogan and marketing phrase…
Not just "more of" it was literally a marketing phrase for the LAPD to try and rehab their image. And as we all know marketing works, especially since it's been so widely engrained into public consciousness.
Next you'll tell me Zoot Suit Riot isn't just about big shoulder pads.
One would think it would hold legally that if the officer credibly believed there to be explosives, then they were endangering those nearby by choosing not to evacuate, and if not, then the defense could argue they didn't have probable cause to search, thereby voiding the later warrant?
Good luck with that... The police have no legal duty to keep the public safe. :/
You can’t sue for theoretical damages
You’re going to have a hard time coming up with an injury you suffered.
I'm not an expert but a) wouldn't you need some kind of probable cause to search for a bomb? and b) if they genuinely thought there was a bomb (aka had probable cause), would they just go digging around in the bag? Or would they call the bomb squad?
ETA to clarify, the query is about the wisdom of digging around in a bag saying "gotta make sure there isn't a bomb in here" as is described in the article, and if you're saying you're looking for a bomb but actually just going for a dig, doesn't that suggest that they do not, actually have probable cause, because who tf would be like "there could be a bomb in here, I'ma stick my face in it."
There was a time after the Atlanta olympics bombing where every unattended backpack led to shutting down a city block to check for a bomb, but I guess these days they’re just tough enough to take the hit.
Uvalde police officers would like a word about being tough on the job.
That's because they didn't know if there was a weapon, they wouldn't have gone through the bag if they knew there was a presence of one.
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." ~ Gin Rummy
"It's not what you know, its what you can prove in court." - Law abiding citizen.
"I AM THE LAW!" -
Average police officerJUDGE DREDDWe still take off our shoes at the airport because of that shoe bomber 20+ years ago.
It’s sometimes now. Or sometimes it’s all the time. Or sometimes is none of the time. Sometimes.
This is the most accurate description of TSA guidelines I’ve heard.
I used to take off my shoes.
I still do, but I used to, too.
I thought they recently changed that?
Yep as of July.
I lived two blocks away from the Nashville Christmas bombing, and that weekend every time a drunk bachelorette left their purse on the sidewalk, police would get called to assess bomb threats and evacuate apt buildings and hotels.
I shit you not.
He was at a McDonald's so they just had to assume he was armed
hands Bart a grenade launcher
From the Simpsons, when Bart and Lisa go to military school. This was back in the 1997.
2 whole years before Columbine.
Crazy thing about Columbine is that the guns were supposed to be a tool to herd the kids to the evac points. Since the shooters went to the school they knew where the muster locations were. So they loaded their cars with home made propane tank bombs and filled their cars with a shit ton of shrapnel, then parked next to the locations that the kids would be mustering after evacuating.
The bombs were set to go off about 30 minutes after they started shooting. They reasoned that 30 minutes was enough time for the news to get choppers in the air and get a live feed of the school going. So they could get a live shot of the bombs going off broadcast to the country. Lucky they suck at bomb making and they didn't go off.
They had to make sure he wasn’t the hamburglar.
Good point, surprised they didnt just open fire in that case
Especially since he wasn’t wearing the backpack.
I’m not an expert … but if you suspected a bomb or explosives - would you not separate yourself from the bag and clear the area as opposed to opening it up?
Isn’t that standard protocol or rational thinking? (Of right cops…SMH)
Don’t move, shake, or open the suspicious package.
Move yourself and others away quickly and calmly.
Get as far away as possible.
Even better - if there had been a bomb in the side pocket, they would have missed it during that search and brought it back inside police station. Again.
also if I remember correctly her body cam was off for that 11 minute drive
Case closed!
Bake 'em away, toys.
lol, I found this fun anecdote in the article
“Wasser told another officer she didn’t want to repeat an incident in which another Altoona officer had inadvertently brought a bomb to the police station.”
Apparently they’d already had issues and this is what they came up with. If it’s a lie, it’s a bad one. If it’s the truth, the officer also admitted they didn’t clear the McDonald’s first.. the negligence on display is not a good look.
I'd argue that they didn't clear the McD denonstates they clearly didn't think there was a bomb in there. But what do I know? I'm just some guy on the Internet.
That is a valid argument the defence is likely to make.
Eh, if there was a bomb in the bag (and no, I don't think they thought there was) then it isn't likely set to explode when you open the bag. Most bombs are pretty primitive and only go off when set off or mishandled.
There are exceptions to the rule, such as Terry frisks, a search incident to arrest, and inventorying after an arrest… there’s also the inevitable discovery rule.
Terry frisks just require a reasonable suspicion but I don’t believe its scope has been expanded to nearby personal effects. SITA and inventorying require PC for the arrest but not necessarily for the search. For inevitable discovery the state has to show that the evidence would have inevitably been found through legal means
Inevitable discovery tends to apply more so toward finding a dead person and what not, right? Like you "accidentally" search the trunk of a car unlawfully and find a dead body. It can be used as evidence under the inevitable discovery exception. But if you just find a kilo of drugs, the evidence isn't admissible because the search was unlawful. Right? That's the way I believe it was taught "back in the day"
If he was already being arrested -- he was, he had a suspected forged ID -- then his backpack was going to be searched for weapons. That's entirely standard practice. It's a search incident to arrest.
They got a warrant after the fact so that they can show that a judge has agreed that the search is constitutional even if the original charge is not pursued by the prosecutor. Which it may not be if the forged ID is not a federal charge or if the McDonald's employee was mistaken.
There is a whole legal doctrine about this called “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”.
A) they would need probable cause unless it was in “plain view”. If the search was done prior to acquiring a warrant and there was no probable cause/consent/evidence in plain view, defense could try to keep it out by saying that the entirety of the contents found in the bag were “fruit of the poisonous tree”.
B) that would be an argument that defense could try to make.
I mean, you're wrong. "Plain View" is one exception to the warrant requirement. Another is "search incident to arrest" - police are allowed to search a person and their belongings if that person is under arrest. Assuming the arrest is supported by probable cause, then the results of that search are admissible.
There are a lot of other exceptions as well - even if the search was illegal at the time, the contents of the search could still be admissible under the "inevitable discovery" rule - e.g. when the search is a foregone conclusion then the timing of when a warrant is acquired becomes pretty irrelevant.
There are a lot of exceptions to the warrant requirement. Turns out 250 years of legal proceedings results in a lot of case law
[deleted]
Blatantly illegal.
Fruit of the poisonous tree.
It's not as cut and dry as you think. If the prosecution can successfully argue those items would have eventually been located as part of a legal search then it can be admitted as evidence.
As a lawyer, this exception is drilled into us during law school as a “don’t forget to end all 4th amendment analysis with this”. It’s a bs exception. You go through all this great analysis as to whether evidence should be excluded due to a possible violation of the 4th amendment, but you end every essay with “However, if the prosecution can prove that the Evidence would have been discovered through an eventual lawful search, it will not be excluded at trial.”
Edit: Guys, I’m not a criminal defense attorney. But because enough of you are saying that the search of the bag is unlawful, I’m not so sure about that. From what I can recall from law school (it’s been a while), a person’s bag can be an extension of a pat down search. A pat down is proper so long as there is reasonable suspicion that the person subject to the search is armed with weapons. Reasonable suspicion is a low bar and can be triggered through an anonymous tip. I’m assuming that the prosecution is going to argue that because the police were looking for someone who is known to be armed with a weapon, the search of the bag is lawful. However, the key distinction is that the police can’t look for drugs or other kinds of evidence—weapons only. So my guess is that the question is whether bullets count as “weapons” for the purpose of a terry search.
I don’t do criminal defense, but my take away from my crim law classes in law school was “holy shit the 4th amendment is basically worthless” after going through all the cases.
The general public really has no idea how ineffectual the 4th amendment is in many situations imo
But… how is the search justified to begin with? Police could go through anyone’s home if they chose and eventually find evidence befitting a crime and then get the warrant for the search, how is that circular logic allowed?
Edit: Thank you for all the responses with helpful information on how it works!
It'll all hinge on if the police had enough to outright arrest him, or get a search warrant, without considering the contents of the bag. If they did the bag would have been "searched incident to arrest" and inevitable discovery will kick in. If it's found that they were unable to secure a search warrant or arrest him independently of the contents of the bag, then that was an illegal search and the contents of the bag fruit of the poisonous tree.
I believe that's being looked into very carefully too. "Arrest" seems like a simple definition, but legally it can be an extremely complicated matter to sort out when it actually occurred. If it's determined he was still free to go at any time while they searched his stuff, then (IANAL) I think that would exclude the evidence. I heard there was also an argument being made that they essentially surrounded him and made it seem like he was not free to go, when he actually still was. Basically, forced him to submit to a search and questioning under the impression he was being detained, but before he was legally "detained". Again, it's a very complex area that can be looked at in a ton of different ways. With this case I imagine it's close to the point it will come down to the judge, and not a very clearly defined situation from the start
Let's say a man is pulled over for drunk driving. He was swerving, cop stops him, does a FST and he blows a .13, he's cuffed and arrested. He's a little aggro and the cop starts searching the car while he's in the car cooling down. Opening the trunk, he finds 10 kilos of heroin. There was no smell, nor did a dog alert. The car was not YET impounded, though it was going to be. The man is charged with possession, distribution, etc...
The lawyers would argue that without consent or a warrant, the search of the vehicle was unlawful and the evidence for what he's now being charged with (felony distribution of narcotics) is based on the 'fruit of the poison tree'. The prosecutors counter would be that since the man had committed a crime which led to his vehicle being impounded, and searching of an impounded vehicle is standard practice, that those drugs would have been found eventually, they're admissible.
That's the gist of it.
I’m guessing it’s if the warrant would have been able to have been obtained even without that evidence
Your home is different from a bag you're found with.
It's a preliminary search for weapons. The guy was wanted for murder, seen on camera with a suppressed pistol. Any officer could articulate the need to search for weapons.
Yeah lmao what are people here talking about
Feelings over facts, essentially.
He's seen as a modern day Robin Hood fighting back against an unjust system, so anything that might assist him in getting found not-guilty they're going to latch on.
Police had probable cause to detain him based on the description and the tip they got, and part of that is searching the guy for weapons since the guy they were looking for just shot someone on the street.
Presumably they don't get to use the evidence from the warrantless search to obtain the warrant. They have to independently develop the basis to obtain a warrant, they just don't have to have done that at the time.
Because they still have to get the warrant.
They'd have to prove that finding the bullets wasn't the final straw that led to his arrest and the seizure of the backpack, right? If the defense can make a compelling argument that there was a decent chance Mangione would have been released along with the backpack, then the evidence is out...
Theyll argue inevitable discovery and they'll win
You still appeal it, and hope that you win. Especially in major cases like this where the only limiting factors are what the law will even tenuously support and the court's time, you appeal everything you can reasonably (or in cases involving the illegal retention of national security documents, even and especially unreasonably) appeal.
It’s good for the system in the end because otherwise there’s the whole “ineffective counsel” argument down the line.
Plus it’s literally the ethical thing to do as a defense lawyer in any case.
(Agreeing with you!)
Most IANAL comment ever.
Search incident-to-arrest is a well-supported precedent.
Not illegal. He was arrested for having a Fake ID from NJ and giving a false name. Pursuant to the arrest, the searched his person for any dangerous items or contraband before booking him into jail to be processed. As part of that, they found the additional evidence that they used to get a complete search warrant.
It's all standard and legal.
This is unfortunately not necessarily true.
Blatantly wrong.
Insert buzzwords I think I understand.
Lol just because you watched law and order doesn't mean you know how the law works
Svu marathon on as we speak
But it goes dong dong in a really ominous way!
Not quite, police can do a “Terry” stop and frisk a suspect and their possessions for any potential threats if they have reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous, like one would expect if you are detaining a shooting suspect.
Additionally the exclusionary rule that kicks out evidence that was illegally obtained has several exceptions that make the evidence admissible again, like the independent source doctrine or inevitable discovery rule.
Inevitable discovery. They were always going to search the bag he was arrested with. The officer did a quick search upon arresting to make sure the contents didn't pose an active threat.
No dog in this fight but surely being called to a suspected sighting of your number one suspect is grounds enough to search his bag?
For a cursory search of their person (not effects) at the time of detainment or arrest to determine if they have anything that can harm the officers or themselves, sure. Keep in mind the suspect was reported for having shot someone and deemed armed.
happens all the time in police interactions, police will argue they needed to do a basic search of his belongings to verify their safety his lawyers are going to argue they didnt have the right to do that thats what the judge is supposed to help them figure out what the move is, either its valid and will be permitted in court or it isnt and it wont be.
What's normally the outcome?
How much money does the defendant have?
So can a billionaire kill another poorer billionaire or how many millions need to separate for the killing to be justified
Depends on the jury, the judge, and the state.
Takes more in a liberal state.
The victim has to be poor. If a rich person kills another rich person then the law works normally.
The search incident to arrest and inevitable discovery doctrine means it will likely be found legal.
Especially given the context. If he was arrested for something like public urination and then officers found drugs in his bag, he would have a much better chance of arguing there was no need for them to search his bag without a warrant. He was the suspect in a high profile murder investigation that had a clear ideological motive (even if they didn't know the specifics yet). It was reasonable to think he might have had a bomb or something else dangerous in his bag.
The evidence is usually admitted, provided the police had probable cause. And here, the defense's argument is that they didn't. Let's say you get pulled over and the officer smells weed. That's probable cause for them to search the car. But if some random person calls and says they saw you with weed, that is not probable cause. So what happened here is that an employee called the police and said "this guy kind of looks like the one from TV". So police show up, detain him, search him, search his bag, find a loaded magazine, and arrest him.
Nothing found when body cams were on. Body cams off, and suddenly they find everything
They found bullets in the bag that he had with him in PA... despite them telling us days prior to his arrest that they found that bag left behind in Central Park full of Monopoly money.
They also say that they found the gun in his bag in PA... despite us all seeing the security video of the shooter uses a silencer/suppressor, and the gun they seized from his didn't have one...
A suppressor isn't permanently attached to a gun. It can easily be removed.
Yeah, they typically are just threaded on unless you have a quick detach system.
After they put bullets in the bag, they got a warrant to find bullets they just knew were in his bag
Is that what he is claiming, that the bullets were planted? Sorry I have not been following the nuances of this trial.
They're not directly claiming it but that's the reason why these rules about warrants and chain of custody exist. If procedures aren't followed, then it's not a legal search and not legal evidence.
No, at least not yet. That would be a much higher burden of proof than what they are claiming: searching the bag to begin with was illegal because they did not have a warrant. They could try to argue the bullets were planted later but why do that if you can get them tossed out wholesale?
And to be clear they would need a warrant or probable cause to search his backpack, and per other reddit comments it seems the public defence is currently "a warrant was obtained later"
Can we even trust the bullets werent planted then?? Smh...
”JOHNSON! Sprinkle a few bullets in the bag”
- Chief Donut
God dammit, Donut
My problem is that they seperated him from his possessions, disappeared the bag, then made multiple different claims that they kept finding additional things in that bag.
Therefore there is a reasonable doubt that it should not be admitted into evidence.
Yeah, they kept finding things in that bag like a magician, I wouldn’t have been surprised if a flock of doves was also claimed to have flown out of the bag.
they're still pulling a line of handkerchiefs out til this day!
That's not how that works at all
What you're talking about is chain of custody, which is important. However, so long as there is a cop saying "I had the bag at this time" and there's a string of cops all saying that such that who was in possession at any given moment is traceable, there are no chain of custody issues that would bar the contents of the bag from being admissible as a matter of law.
However, the jury can consider how convoluted the chain of custody is as an element of the weight of the evidence.
In other words, the contents of the bag are 100% admissible. The jury can decide that they don't like how it was handled and not put very much weight/credence on the contents of the bag when considering guilt.
Reasonable doubt is for a jury to decide, not the judge.
This is all standard pretrial procedure too. Both sides argue whether X should be admitted as evidence or not and the judge decides whether to admit as evidence or throw it out.
Remember when that psycho swat cop murdered that innocent dude in a Vegas hotel hallway, and the cop’s lawyers successfully got his “you’re fucked” message written on his gun barred from the trial?
Pepperidge Farm remembers
Edit: dyslexia
That was the cop that later sued his department for "disability" because he was traumatized by the backlash from the shooting of a guy with his pants around his ankles?
Same cop as the one who got rehired for a month on a desk job (despite being 'disabled') just so he could accrue enough time to qualify for a pension which is 3660 a month, for the rest of his life, updated for inflation because of the PTSD he got from murdering someone.
I hope wherever he goes people recognize him and never let him forget.
I'm sure he and his buddies are still laughing about it.
The cop's name is Philip Brailsford.
Maricopa County, AZ.
The victim is Daniel Shaver
(googles)
Oh what the actual fuck??
This is America
Hard footage to watch, man begging for his life. Damn
Remember there was a backpack that was found in Central Park the day of the shooting?
That was supposedly “the killer’s”?
…but there was nothing in it but a jacket.
Then the one he allegedly took with him magically has all this super incriminating stuff in it.
Huh.
can't forget the monopoly money
but yeah, i always thought that was suspicious. what, was he supposed to have 2 backpacks on?
A second backpack inside main backpack. You get somewhere and ditch the main backpack and your jacket which is surely caught on camera. That's what I would do..
if I was planning this, I'd have no backpacks on if I was caught. I'm a little surprised that after all that planning, he had any evidence on him. All of my stuff would be in a burning trash can, and any firearm would have serial numbers scratched off and at the bottom of the Hudson.
Which is why it’s suspicious. Dude somehow evaded all but like 4 public cameras in New York, fled to Pennsylvania where the only trace of an item that was his other than the 3-4 pictures posted, was a ditched backpack with no evidence in it and was believed to be his. Only for the other backpack he has to be stuffed with all evidence?
After a phone call from a McDonald’s employee from 3 states over says “this looks like him.” (That was likely LEO and not McDonald’s worker) makes a call to the FBI and they swarm him in minutes.
I don’t recall any idea about where he’d possibly be, they didn’t suspect him to leave the state that quickly if at all. And if his plan was to not get caught why would you find all the evidence still on his person days after the manhunt in a separate state?? He had all the time in the world to walk through a forest preserve in Pennsylvania, step into the wooded areas, and dig 8 feet down and none of it would be found.
Unless the argument is that he wanted to be found, in which case, why the fuck did he leave the site/state of the crime?
None of it adds up. And especially hilarious that they failed to mirandize him in its entirety, and then had the largest perp walk of all time as a political stunt, only to effectively de-teeth the whole prosecution because now there’s just grounds that reek of having the case be tossed as a mistrial anyway. All while prosecutors are using it as a stepping stone to criminalize him before being tried and every single time news comes out about this case, it shows incompetence of Law Enforcement and illegal monitoring by the FBI.
Consider they found him using even more illegal or legal but controversial means and didn't want to reveal how they actually found him.
This is my belief as well. I have a hard time believing a random McDonalds employee states away reported it. Maybe desperate for the reward and gullible, MAYBE. But these days with the flock cameras, facial recognition, and police state tracking of data and communication, it seems more likely it was a tip from a surveillance organization or tool that they don’t want revealed. They were desperate to catch this guy and make an example.
They released the 911 call and the lady sure sounded like a McDonald's worker. But I also believe there may be more to it. Idk.
They could have offered some poor person 400-600 bucks instead of the 25k (50k?) reward and used a number spoofer with that area code or even spoofed that McDonald’s number altogether, and just had her act it out.
But again; it could totally be all as it’s been reported, it just really doesn’t seem all that believable as a story.
All of this
You'd also want to swap your face to that of John Travolta.
If you're putting that much forethought into carrying out an assassination, you'd probably have chosen a spot to dump the gun instead of just having it on you several days later in a random McDonalds.
Seriously he was around enough water to throw it in, wouldn't be found for a long time if ever
For someone to plan this so well it makes little sense to keep the incriminating stuff on you
Yeah, that's definitely possible
They will probably claim the bag in central park was unrelated. The backpack didn't look particularly unique and a park with that much traffic it is perfectly reasonable that a random person left a random bag at a random place in the park completely unrelated to the case. And just at the time the police had nothing so they tried to talk up that bag to make it look like they at least had something.
Unless there was something other than a jacket and monopoly money, something that does tie it to the case, I wouldn't be surprised if that bag doesn't get brought up at all during the case. At most defense could try to bring it up for reasonable doubt but I think questioning chain of evidence around the bag he was found with is a better avenue for reasonable doubt.
I thought they'd said that the jacket matched the one of the guy caught on CCTV and that's why it was claimed to be his backpack.
I could be misremembering though
It was a $300 Peak Design bag. No one is randomly leaving that in a park on accident.
The older V1 version of it, too. Doesn’t make it more or less valuable, just much less likely for one to own or to see someone wearing since it’s a rucksack-style bag uniquely marketed towards photographers, and the V1’s had been discontinued since 2019
It's impossible for me to believe that someone who killed someone and escapes, who seems so intelligent, is also someone who CARRIES EVIDENCE AROUND WITH HIM, for hours and days after committing a major crime?
Unless he was specificically trying to get caught, WHY THE FUCK would you carry around bullets and a manifesto? It seems so planted its insane.
That right there, what you are describing. That's called "reasonable doubt".
Maybe he wasn’t trying to get caught, but was prepared if caught to make as big of a statement as possible. It’s not really that outlandish after murdering the CEO.
[deleted]
A McDonald's employee who wasn't paid for her tip.
The 911 call has been made public.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BrianThompsonMurder/comments/1peezak/altoona_911_call_has_been_released_to_media/
Those types usually go out with a bang.
The inconsistencies from before the arrest to after are deafening.
Found a backpack along his retreat path the day of the shooting.
Said they tracked him coming up on a bus from Georgia.
Now saying neither of those are true and they found a gun with a ton of cash on him when they arrested him due to an unidentified McDonald's employee they don't have to pay a reward to..... And cash he claims he never had showed up in the bag during the arrest.
IMO they caught somebody on a camera in McDonald's who triggered a match on the server and showed up with a bag with cash and a gun to make sure they could get a conviction.
Better than letting other CEOs think the guy is still out there. They might have to think about their actions
Yeah, I do think this stinks of parallel construction.
They didn’t describe parallel construction- they described framing a patsy. Parallel construction would be if the NSA used arguably illegal and secret methods they didn’t want to disclose, but instead had someone call it in anonymously. I am not saying that is what happened, BTW.
It does if they found his location through clandestine means, which is what he mentions with seeing him on a camera, and it matching against his face. Since they can't really disclose that sort of thing, having someone call it in ends up working fine for them. That is 100 percent parallel construction.
You really think McDonald’s security cams are constantly scanning for facial recognition? Some random McDonald’s in PA does not have facial recognition on their security cameras.
The ordering kiosks definitely are. They already do it for customer recognition, might as well sell data to Palantir too.
It's not their security cameras. It's on their ordering kiosks. They absolutely have that as you scroll through the menu.
More like the NSA, CIA, etc have the ability to monitor civilian cameras secretly. This isn’t too far fetched after the Snowden revelations.
I mean shit, with everything I’ve been learning about Flock recently, it seems more likely they just tagged him on the street somewhere and the McDonalds was a convenient place to trap him when they knew he’d sit for 10 minutes
I really want the NRA to opine on this one.
their silence on cases like this always says a lot
They sure stuck up for Philando Castile th- oh wait
Think the fact that they advocate for more guns in schools after every single school shooting speaks even louder >.>
They won't.
Haven't heard much from them since they were outed as completely compromised by Russia...
Well in fairness to them on this case, it's not being covered in Russian language media, so they have no idea what's going on here.
The NRA was found out to be a Russian asset. They're whole job was to destabilize. Look it up.
The NRA is a Russian asset for the longest time because they have been accepting Russian funding.
The NRA only speaks up about gun rights when someone kills a bunch of kids.
The difference, and the simplest reason for the NRA not speaking about this case, is that nobody is using this case to try to say that gun rights for law abiding citizens should be restricted.
Yeah, there's really nothing in the context or discussion of this situation that has lead to any gun rights discussion at all, so there's not really anything for the NRA to speak against.
What, exactly, do you want the NRA to come out and say?
I can't think of anything they could actually say that wouldn't be skewed negatively, not in the context of using a firearm for assassination.
Either they get painted as hypocrites by shallow-minded people for condemning the illegal use of a gun or they get condemned as fanatics for supporting the illegal use of a gun. There isn't really a beneficial legal stance for them to take in this situation, especially when nobody's talking about using this situation as an excuse to attack gun rights anyways.
I’m also waiting for Ronald McDonald to speak on this. How long is mayor MCcheese going to let the hamburgler continue? We all know if it was grimace there would be a different toon.
The main question in my mind is whether he gave the fake ID over or if they found/took it from him. If he gave it over willingly then he wanted to be found and that was an arrestable offense that would have led to the search anyway.
He did hand it over. It's on the bodycam footage which is being reviewed in this hearing.
I was under the impression that a fake ID isn’t inherently illegal cause it can be considered a “novelty” item, it’s only illegal when you try to use it for something. Don’t quote me on this though IANAL
Wouldn’t he be “trying to use it” to identify himself to the police?
If he used it as a legitimate form of identification then yes that’s when it crosses the line to illegality
Bullets being famously hard to get in America of course
Backpacks are generally included in the wingspan area for searches incident to arrest. If they are in the process of arresting him and the backpack was in his immediate area of control, New York v Belton would give clear justification for searching the backpack without a warrant. Where it gets fuzzy is the story the police gave, Mangione was already in handcuffs when the backpack was searched which probably falls to a judgement
New York v Belton is limited to vehicles only.
Yeah, spot on about Belton being vehicles-only.
The real governing case here is Chimel v. California (1969), covers the arrestee's person and immediate "wingspan" for safety/evidence reasons.
With Mangione cuffed, though, it might stretch Chimel's limits unless there's a solid exigent circumstance.
The most recent developments in the Circuit Courts is to apply the reasoning behind Arizona v Gant to backpacks. In the third circuit which includes PA there's the case of US v Shakir which I believe would be controlling in the Mangione case; in that case they admitted a backpacks contents I to evidence, but applying the reasoning they used in that case would probably suggest it should be excluded n Mangiones case (assuming my understanding of the facts regarding the search are accurrate.) essentially, if it would be unreasonable to believe the suspect could access the backpack at the time of the search, then there is no exigency preventing an application for a warrant.
And give the photos of the scene even if he was not handcuffed he could not reach the bag as it was over a full body length away. Unless Mangione suddenly becomes Mr. Fantastic he could not reach his bag. There is zero reason the cops could not take the bag with them get a warrant to search it while he is being held and questioned further and searched it legally. I fully expect the court to rule the cops can do whatever they want because the entire state wants to make an example of this guy so the law will mean nothing to them but it seems clear to me at least this was an unlawful search.
The article also states that the officer searched the bag inside the McDonalds while Mangione was under arrest outside.
They also said they suspected a bomb due to the weight of the backpack, but then proceeded to follow zero of the protocol laid out for when you suspect a bomb.
Can’t play stupid and smart at the same time.
If they screwed up that fast, one suspects tampering. Once a warrant was obtained, more eyes would be on the backpack and a better chain of custody would be in place and documented. Arguing that evidence was planted is speculative at best, but it can't be excluded given the screwup. Be really interested to see how this goes. Of course the results will be just as controlled as any soccer game, but still interesting.
What the hell was he still carrying those around for?
"Thank God they're stupid" - Lenny Brisco
Makes it easy when they’re planted.
Remember the sharpie bullets, "anti-ice," when they only managed to shoot detainees?
Like, they really do just be fabricating shit.
Watch we find out it wasn’t even him all along
Y'all are Americans, don't you all have bullets in your bags?
My range bag is a backpack.. so yeah?
Joking aside, I've had a bullet turn up in the wash a couple of times, but never in a non-range bag. Clear pistol during a range trip, put the bullet in my pocket and forgot about it.
He gave the police a fake ID so they arrested him over the fake ID and then searched the bag for weapons. He’s not getting that shit excluded lol
A bunch of Reddit Legal Experts in here that don’t know what Search Incident to Arrest means. Just because there’s a suppression hearing, doesn’t mean the argument has merit. It’s a procedural argument that any good lawyer would make.
Really can’t stand 95% of the people on this platform …
I’ll take my downvotes now, please.
Additionally, no one seems to understand, or they are just skipping over that he provided a false ID. The cops ran it and discovered, oh gee lookie, it's not real.
Providing false identification to police. 18 Pa. C.S. § 4914 Misdemeanor of the Third Degree (M3)
Arrestable offense. They arrest him. Backpack is now subject to Search Incident to Arrest. There is zero chance this is going to be excluded.
I have a friend who defended himself in a similar case, but those little differences matter. My friend properly identified himself, and specifically stated multiple times that they didn't have consent to search his bags. He knew the law pretty well though(I mean obviously, as he defended himself in court while in jail)
There's a guy on reddit whose on a crusade against "San Francisco DA's" who thinks that every motion filed by defense attorneys is tantamount to "letting them go" and he gets angry that at the judge that a motion was filed.
Sadly, he's got 100s of thousands of followers (he's a bay area VC) and people follow his lead because they're not smart enough to inquire how the system works.
It’s important to realise that a significant portion of users on this site are literal children.
And now you can’t tell, as commenting is often anonymous. Which is fine, whatever, I just have to remind myself that I, myself, was once an Iamverysmart teenager online and probably posting dipshit comments on my hobbie forums, and that there’s a very real chance the guy I’m debating nuances of medical stuff with is an actual, literal child.
When you read comments on Reddit that you have an actual understanding of, for me medicine, for others engineering or law or finance or economics or whatever, you quickly realise that many of the commenters on this site have the absolute worst possible takes, and are so far off the mark it’s incredible. Unfortunately, first in best dressed with comments; and, as long as you sound like you know what you’re talking about, you’ll get upvoted and are suddenly the voice of authority on whatever issue. Try and correct and enjoy downvotes and being yelled at and even sent weird, creepy DMs that are clearly threatening and reddit won’t do anything about when reported.
We should scrutinise all comments with the some critical eye we do of those who are making wildly inaccurate claims we know to be untrue, because it’s our area.
Unfortunately we don’t, we go on to the next topic and read the top comments and go, “Oh, I see. Interesting.” The Gell-Mann Effect.
A good time to remember,
Upvote ≠ true
Upvote = me likey
Almost none of us are “legal experts” so how would anyone know that Your point is true, beyond your amplified conviction? Providing and requiring evidence is what redditors are always lacking.
Classic move to keep bullets in your bag when you get home from an assassination
Who do you think caught him on camera? Does this imply everyone’s face is being scanned at McDonald’s every day constantly? Is this a real theory?
They use facial recognition at the self service kiosk, and they dont like to make that well known. I still doubt there was a real 'mcdonalds employee' rhat called in
did the Bullets also say FUCK ICE?
Man, so many people don't know anything about this process
the United health care CEO Brian Thompson used an AI he knew for a fact shortchanged care to critically ill people, and he cut a whole lot of lives short doing that. He was a mass murderer and he stole peoples lives for profit.
Sometimes vigilante justice is the only justice available.
Its the fault of our badly designed justice system that we dodnt hold rich corporate murderers like thompson to criminal account. With those extenuating circumstances in mind I'd say Mangioni should have a statue erected in his honor regardless of whether he is convicted in this kangaroo court trial or not. Or multiple statues. And the health care companies should be made to pay for them.
If it was this guy I still don’t understand why he didn’t have a plan to drop the gun somewhere. Or drop it at the scene godfather style
I really hope they fuck this up and this revolutionary goes free. Maybe it will scare these other HORRIBLE CEO’s to do the right thing for a change.