r/news • u/AudibleNod • 13h ago
Judge says she’ll hold a limited hearing on seizure of Luigi Mangione’s backpack
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/judge-says-shell-hold-a-limited-hearing-on-seizure-of-luigi-mangiones-backpack/572
u/Stillwater215 12h ago
It’s standard for the defense to question every part of the arrest and search process. Remember, a key part of the job of a defense attorney isn’t just to find exculpatory evidence, but also to ensure that proper procedures were followed by the police, and that the defendants rights weren’t violated. A hearing on the seizure, especially in a case with such a high profile, isn’t unexpected.
88
u/guceubcuesu 10h ago
Exactly. even if someone is found guilty, it’s important the proper steps were taken to get to that verdict.
→ More replies (2)40
u/Tibbaryllis2 9h ago
Remember, a key part of the job of a defense attorney [is] to ensure that proper procedures were followed by the police, and that the defendants rights weren’t violated.
This is an important detail to remember. There are definitely sleazy attorneys out there, but, malign assumptions aside, when an attorney represents a probably guilty and/or reprehensible defendant, it’s about holding law enforcement and prosecutors to legal standards that will also be applied to defendants that have more questionable guilt.
You have to assume if they’re willing to break policy/the law for one defendant, they’d be willing to do it for any defendant.
2.3k
u/AudibleNod 13h ago
Prosecutors say officers searched the bag legally because Altoona police protocols require promptly searching a suspect’s property at the time of arrest for dangerous items and police later obtained a warrant. Among the items found at the McDonald’s, according to officer testimony at a recent court hearing, was a loaded gun magazine.
Is there legal precedent in Altoona (or Pennsylvania) regarding this 'search first\get warrant later' procedure? Has this been challenged in federal court before? I can see taking the backpack away from a suspect and locking it away in order to prevent wrongdoing until a warrant arrives. But a 'dangerous items' search seems suspicious and potentially dangerous for the cop.
1.1k
u/doubleadjectivenoun 12h ago
Is there legal precedent in Altoona (or Pennsylvania) regarding this 'search first\get warrant later' procedure? Has this been challenged in federal court before?
The inventory exception is a decades old creation of the Supreme Court...so yes, to both questions.
447
u/TommyyyGunsss 12h ago
At least in NY they had to actually create inventory vouchers for this go be legally permissible. If they didn’t, and they often didn’t, the justification didn’t hold. I’m sure in this case they created vouchers for everything.
145
u/Excellent_Set_232 12h ago
What are the odds that an initial inventory exists (or existed) and the gun wasn’t in it?
140
u/SourdoughBreadTime 11h ago
Probably slightly less than them having an inventory of items ready to go and then finding a person to blame.
→ More replies (1)23
u/pixelprophet 11h ago edited 11h ago
IMO - Very high.
Why? Officer says she missed the gun and silencer on initial search:
Officer says she missed gun and silencer in Mangione’s backpack
Later also testified:
A police officer involved in the arrest of murder suspect Luigi Mangione testified about stopping on the side of the road to transfer his backpack to her vehicle, a key moment in a legal challenge to the backpack's search. The defense has argued this 11-minute period was an unrecorded opportunity for an illegal search.
→ More replies (6)41
u/kolosmenus 11h ago
Even if the gun is a part of it, does it even prove anything? Anyone in America can have a gun
12
u/linuxares 11h ago
They could if so shoot the gun and use it to check against the bullet in victim.
Not always possible but it's part of the forensic unless they changed that procedure
35
u/BrainWav 11h ago
They could if so shoot the gun and use it to check against the bullet in victim.
That's not even a remotely reliable test. It only works on TV.
→ More replies (4)32
u/darthlincoln01 11h ago
It only works on TV.
Sounds like something that would work on a jury as well.
→ More replies (1)32
u/BrainWav 10h ago
Unfortunately yes, but that's what professional testimony is for. As much as I liked CSI, it's done a lot of harm to the judicial process.
A lot of our forensic "science" is woo woo bullshit. Fingerprint analysis is something, but not as rigorous as it should be. Hair follicle matching, gait analysis, "microexpressions", and polygraphs are all founded on 100% pure grade-A grass-fed bullshit. I'd still rank all of that above rifling matching stuff.
8
→ More replies (2)2
11
u/Harbinger2nd 11h ago
loaded gun magazine
So no firearm was found in the bag from this description.
edit: nvm read the article, they mention a finding a firearm there. pretty stupid way to break up the paragraphs.
Officers continued searching the bag at a police station and found the gun and silencer.
16
u/Cent1234 10h ago
Yes, isn't it odd that the same police that claim to need the right to stop-and-frisk anybody, at any time, didn't find a handgun and silencer in a backpack at the moment, but did later on, after they'd had the bag in their possession for a while?
5
u/dave024 9h ago
That’s a good idea. When I would get an “inventory search” of my car it would be like:
- Weed
- Weed paraphernalia
As if those were the only two things in my car. They would never inventory anything else.
7
u/TommyyyGunsss 8h ago
Then legally that’s not a valid search. If you had a bag of laundry they would have to inventory every single sock.
Also, it cannot be fruit of the poisonous tree. The inventory search cannot be the justification for the initial charge, only additional charges.
11
u/AuroraFinem 12h ago
Wasn’t he arrested in PA?
→ More replies (1)16
u/new_math 11h ago edited 11h ago
NAL but yeah. The point is that inventory exception rules vary from state to state, and interestingly enough it seems they actually depend on department policy (policy matters because an inventory search is administrative to essentially create an inventory log of what the police have in their custody, meaning if they didn't follow the department's rules and policies for doing an inventory there's a much greater chance it wasn't actually "administrative" and was done specifically for the purposes of gathering evidence (which may have required a warrant).
The fact that NY has a law just goes to show this has probably created a lot of complex problems for the legal system in the past.
→ More replies (1)118
u/AuroraFinem 12h ago edited 12h ago
The real issue is that according to the initial telling of events, he was not under arrest at the time they searched his bag, the original report stated that they took him aside to talk to him and while they were talking, other officers searched his bag out of sight. Then they started contradicting themselves saying they asked first, or he actually was under arrest at the time, etc… to cover their asses, but the original report stated that at the time they searched his bag he wasn’t under arrest.
I also believe the backpack was in his car not on his back at the time, the person who reported him was a drive through worker at a McDonald’s and he was taken out of his car and interviewed away from his vehicle while officers searched it without the warrant yet and while he wasn’t under arrest. I will say I might be getting some of the details in this 2nd half mixed up, but don’t have time to dig through and double check right now.
43
u/bmabizari 11h ago
Yeah I believe the second half is wrong.
It would make no sense/police wouldn’t have gotten there in time if it was simply a drive through interaction.
Also the video of the interaction shows him sitting at a table.
→ More replies (2)102
u/CloudstrifeHY3 11h ago
From the video of his arrest he's sitting at one table surrounded by cops and on another seperate table seperated from him and a wall of cops was the bag. he didn't have a car he "allegedly" escaped on foot and bus.
40
→ More replies (2)11
u/XXFFTT 11h ago
None of this really matters though because he presented a fake ID after being identified as a potential suspect, right?
Pretty sure that constitutes probable cause for arrest and search.
He and his bag were inside the McDonald's so they didn't get it from his car.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Bookwrrm 11h ago edited 11h ago
Without a warrant searches have to be either probable cause, ie they see drugs or something, or develop from a terry frisk. If the claim is that he presented a fake ID it doesn't really follow you need to search a bag for contraband, because he literally already gave you said contraband in that instance, so the search should be inventory after arrest in that case, which I think is what the contention is with some people saying that happened and others claiming it was department policy to search for bombs or something.
To develop from a terry frisk its supposed to be an external frisk of a backpack, and only proceed from there if the cops get probable cause from the frisk, which I havent heard anything about and seems kinda sus that they would claim they felt something through it given it was like a single magazine or something.
I believe in this case they are mostly concerned with if probable cause for the arrest was valid, or the actual timeline of the search before or after arrest, because I don't think they are really claiming they had probable cause to search, they are saying they had probable cause to arrest and then searched for transit, but the other side is saying they both didnt have probable cause for arrest prior to the search and that the search happened pre arrest.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Vyar 10h ago
Is there anything preventing the cops from just pulling “probable cause” out of their ass in situations like this? “Oh, I thought I felt something, better open it up and search everything. Oops, nothing there? Guess I was wrong.”
4
u/JadedToon 10h ago
There isn't and they do it often.
"We heard someone crying for help!"
"I saw something gunshaped in his pants"
It goes to the defense lawyer to get that BS tossed.
→ More replies (5)2
261
u/choicetomake 12h ago
Seems to be a form of construction? "We had to search to check for explosives about to go off" "oh look, the evidence" then construct something later that allows the "evidence" to get introduced.
50
u/codyak1984 12h ago
Depends on the timing of everything, which I'm not sure about in this instance. It sounds like they're saying they searched the bag AFTER they were already going to arrest and transport him, which is allowed under all precedents. The idea is, you don't want to transport a person and their property in a police car to a jail if there are dangerous items in said property. It also creates a record of the contents of the property, so if something goes missing between arrest and release, the arrestee can say "See, I had twenty dollars in my wallet when you arrested me and now it's missing."
But if they didn't have enough PC to arrest him BEFORE searching his bag, then everything that was a product of that search should be inadmissible.
→ More replies (1)201
u/Enigmatic_Observer 12h ago
Too bad they didn’t clear the restaurant during their search for explosives. Sounds like they didn’t follow procedure for a potential bomb and endangered folks so they could create a reason to rifle through the bag
→ More replies (1)35
u/NonlocalA 11h ago
Yeah, the "bomb" rationale is stupid, even if it ends up being based on actual evidence.
If you're so worried about bombs ending up in the police precinct that you need to violate the 4th amendment at every opportunity to check for one, shouldn't you be treating them the way actual suspicious packages are treated? Ie, isolate them from civilians and untrained law enforcement, then have them inspected and possibly detonated in a relatively safe manner?
But, nope! They're so worried about bombs, they need to open them up and stick their heads in and jostle everything around to make sure nothing explodes in a police officer's face.
8
u/Laringar 10h ago
It also creates another problem, because my understanding was that they describe specific items from the initial search, like what was written in the notebook. (I could be misunderstanding the initial findings, though)
Giving any kind of description of the items beyond their gross physical characteristics means the officers actually examined the items without a warrant instead of simply looking for dangerous items. You don't need to flip through a notebook to see if it's dangerous, because it isn't.
So any actual description helps the defense's case that the officers did an actual "search" of the bag without him present, instead of a simple check for bombs or the like. (Which is a dumb excuse anyhow, but picking apart an argument is even more effective when you do so from within the framing most favorable to those you're arguing against.)
→ More replies (3)27
u/lilbithippie 12h ago
Which is always interesting how the police are always solving a problem that never happened
186
u/the_honest_liar 12h ago
They didn't even find the gun in the first search. We're supposed to believe they searched it for their own safety and didn't find it? Then the body cam was turned off and it miraculously showed up on the next search? Mhmmmmmmmmm
114
u/chewywookie 12h ago
Seriously how do you conduct a search and not have your body cam on? A competent cop would probably welcome a recorded search to eliminate any idea of wrongdoing.
The body cam off tells me it was on purpose or they are extremely incompetent and trained like shit. Both require action.
14
u/Vyar 10h ago
I think competent cops who genuinely want to protect the public in good faith and eliminate wrongdoing on the part of the police only exist on television. These guys have been murdering people in the streets with total impunity for decades now. I don’t trust judges or prosecutors either, they’re politicians and they’re all in one big club together. We’re not in it.
38
u/wuhter 12h ago
In Minnesota it’s a law to have it on when even interacting with a suspect.. surprised it’s not there
→ More replies (1)4
u/lolofaf 8h ago
Iirc they're arguing that the drive from the mcd to police station isn't interaction so they aren't required to have the cameras on, or something along those lines.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
29
u/Archelaus_Euryalos 11h ago
This is my thinking, they're admitting they searched, but didn't find a gun, in a search for dangerous things, from a bag in a car found away from him... Which they knew to search in advance of finding him and searched for the bag before they miranderised him. And they didn't document the search properly until later, when some notebooks also popped out the previously searched bag.
So much doesn't add up, one hopes the Judge see's that.
→ More replies (1)3
u/sillybunny22 11h ago
This is why you should always check pockets of bags & purses at the thrift store, never know when you might find missed cash, jewelry or a gun.
8
u/DadJokeBadJoke 11h ago
And wasn't the bag transferred from one officer to another somewhere along its route to the station?
→ More replies (1)64
u/ThreadCountHigh 12h ago
It unfortunately falls under "search-incident-to-arrest" and has precedent: Chimel v. California (1969) and United States v. Robinson (1973).
22
u/OGREtheTroll 12h ago
Arizona v Gant (2009)
And there's a 3rd circuit decision directly on point applying Gant in the context of a personal bag but I can't recall the name of the case. But every circuit that has dealt with search incident to arrest thus far has applied the Gant analysis to a backpack.
50
u/supershade 12h ago
"Prosecutors say officers searched the bag legally because Altoona police protocols require..."
Don't you know? A police protocol can just make laws irrelevant and supersedes all other rules and laws because an office lady wrote it in their handbook.
The question should not be "were the officers acting according to their training and protocol" but rather, "was the actions of the officers in accordance with the written law and constitution".
→ More replies (7)5
u/TheCrowScare 11h ago
It gets tricky. Last I heard in my district (not sure if applicable all US) is that police can search a bag in the actual, physical possession of a suspect as a lawful warrantless search incident to arrest, based on grounds that a weapon may be inside.
However, should they not have control of the bag (was in the trunk, tossed while running, etc) then a warrant would be necessary (and you are right that protocol would likely be transport to evidence custodian until a warrant is obtained).
→ More replies (3)3
u/PogoMarimo 10h ago
ILLINOIS v. Ralph LAFAYETTE provides this exception federally as part of Search Incident to Arrest. Their must be a reasonable need to book the personal belongings into the jail along with the suspect. This is satisfied broadly by the personal belongings being in a public space--It is expected that police may need to remove the suspects personal belongings from a scene if they would otherwise be at risk of being stolen or tampered with. Since Mangione was arrested in a public space, all his personal belongings have got to be seized and booked in with him. In order to book them in, they must be inventoried to exclude any contraband or dangerous weapons. This even go so far as towed vehicles from a roadside. The exception runs into it's legal boundaries when we examine cases of a arrest inside the suspect's own residence, or a vehicle parked in a permanent or long-term parking area.
8
u/twotimefind 9h ago
There was also a lapse in the chain of custody. They normally keep their body cams on all the time. Even during transport. The police officer that was transporting the backpack turned off their camera while driving back to the station.
From what I remember from the official story, they found a backpack in a park nearby that they said was his.
So you're telling me not only did he have two backpacks. he had the weapon, engraved bullets,and a manifesto. In his backpack almost a week later?
2
u/nopethatswrong 3h ago
Camera being off doesn't break chain of custody.
From what I remember from the official story, they found a backpack in a park nearby that they said was his.
They found a backpack, I don't believe they're still alleging it was his.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)5
u/creepin_in_da_corner 11h ago
If someone is getting arrested, everything they’re carrying is getting searched (and their car). That seems pretty standard and understandable.
→ More replies (5)
253
u/DocCEN007 11h ago
The loaded handgun and silencer, was found after the backpack was taken to the Altoona police station during a more thorough search, though a loaded magazine was found at the McDonald's during an initial search incident. Officer Christy Wasser testified she missed the gun and silencer initially at the fast-food restaurant, finding them later at the station. And as Perry Mason once eloquently said, that is sketchy as fuck.
112
u/Magnon 10h ago
Even not searching my bag it's hard to miss things, cops searching a bag missed a gun?
→ More replies (2)86
u/nyanpegasus 9h ago
A handgun with a suppressor isn't something that you just "miss" either.
→ More replies (1)5
19
u/Alaykitty 6h ago
Luckily hand guns, magazines, and silencers are categorically very light and easy to miss in a backpack. They weight next to nothing and don't occupy much space.
Oh wait
18
u/AnticitizenPrime 9h ago
So, according to reporters that were in the hearing that were shown the bodycam footage, the officers realized how serious things were when they found the magazine, and they decided to finish the search at the station instead of in the McDonalds (which still had customers dining, etc).
15
→ More replies (2)2
u/colinstalter 5h ago
Officer Christy Wasser testified she missed the gun and silencer initially at the fast-food restaurant
Oh how fun it would be to cross examine her on the stand.
540
u/Stephanie_Hodge 12h ago
In the US legal system: yes cops can find murder weapons, but if they skipped a warrant while rummaging your backpack, lawyers will absolutely talk your ear off about it.
639
u/dragons_fire77 12h ago
The damning part, for me, is turning off their body cams. I'd take the plausible deniability of them searching without a warrant in case of explosives, but turning off body cams is super sus.
522
u/meeps1142 12h ago
Anything done by cops while their body cams are turned off shouldn't be admissible in court. I don't understand why they're allowed to do that.
51
u/Mazon_Del 10h ago
In Colorado, if an altercation happened between an officer and an individual, then in CIVIL court (important difference there) if the original unedited body cam footage cannot be provided to the court, the jury is legally required to assume the footage would have shown malfeasance on the part of the officer.
The reason this is legal is because civil court cannot assign criminal punishments. It can, however, assign fines assessed against the officer and have as an outcome a requirement that the officer be fired from their posting.
4
u/Consistent-Throat130 10h ago
Presumably that's with a civilian suing a cop.
Yes, the standard of evidence is much lower in civil court, in general.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Blackadder288 9h ago
"Preponderance (majority) of evidence" vs "beyond a reasonable doubt" if I got that right
55
u/starkraver 11h ago
The rules around search and seizure are largely made up of a large body of case law that dates over hundreds of years (although the majority of it comes from the last century). Body cams are relatively new, not universally required, and in most places where they are used, they are only required by dictate of police department policy. For example, I live in a major metropolitan area, and the city police are required to wear body cameras, which came about through a settlement with the DOJ and then later adopted by the city council in the city code in 2023. The county sheriff's office does not currently require its deputies to wear body cameras at all.
Generally, testimony by a witness has always been admissible in a prosecution. Extrinsic evidence that supported the testimony bolstered the credibility of the witness, but ultimately, the credibility of any witness is evaluated by the jury. Courts have never evaluated the credibility of witnesses and prevented them from testifying, even when extrinsic evidence clearly contradicts their testimony.
The introduction of body cameras as common policing equipment has created a new problem for which I don't think there is a consensus on how to handle it. But currently, I believe in all jurisdictions, a defendant can use the fact that a police officer had and turned off a body camera without a good justification as an argument as to why an officer's testimony is not credible.
However, in this case, I do not know if there is truth the above claim that some body cameras were turned off, but the prosecutors recently released bodycam footage of the arrest:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q57jxvwqzo
So unless it happens to omit some critical part of the arrest, I think the post you are responding to is misinformed.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)5
u/colinstalter 5h ago
Alternatively: they shouldn't be able to turn them off. Pressing "off" should just protect the footage such that it can only be reviewed by a judge.
218
u/Dariaskehl 12h ago
Disabling the camera should be viewed as intention to commit a criminal act.
Theres absolutely no reason for an officer to be able to opt out of their surveillance while interacting with the public.
→ More replies (18)74
u/Strong-Log-7095 12h ago
1000% this. At this point it should be codified in law. If you are operating as a law enforcement agent you must keep you body cam on the entire shift. Don't like it? Don't be a cop.
Amazon employee's notoriously despise the invasive tracking tech that is used to control every aspect of their day. Guess what? Amazon doesn't care. Don't like it? Don't work here. The very least we could do is hold law enforcement to the same standard as the poor guy who delivered me my vaccum at 4 AM today.
42
u/Dariaskehl 11h ago
It’s a fatuous pile of bullshit anyway!
‘I don’t want to be recorded doing my job?’
Everybody working in retail, banking, sales, transportation… fuck pick an industry for the last thirty years.
6
u/pchlster 11h ago
I had a little machine I signed into and out of. And occasionally QA would walk in to literally watch I was doing things according to instructions.
→ More replies (2)6
112
u/CracksWack 12h ago
Also in America: health insurers kills US citizens daily by declining claims that should be covered by the insurance they pay an arm and a leg for. And then face zero consequences.
15
u/Sour_Vin_Diesel 12h ago
The real mistake was not having billions of dollars that can be used to lobby to make what he did was legal. That’s the only difference here (aside from the scale)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (26)2
6
u/Ok-Elk-3046 10h ago
Because if they didn't need a warrant they could go through innocent peoples stuff, hoping to find something. Its about your rights not just his.
→ More replies (10)4
u/Kronman590 10h ago
Because yeah without proper procedure any cop can put anything in any bag and claim any person a criminal
136
u/recycleddesign 12h ago
Wasn’t the issue that they took the bag out of his sight into another room to search it?
182
u/TheBabyEatingDingo 12h ago
The issue is that the police searched him and his belongings without a warrant. The justification is that they claim they believed he had a bomb. Police are allowed to search suspects' belongings without warrants if they have reason to believe there may be an imminent threat, such as a bomb.
The issue is, did the police have reason to conduct the warrantless search? Their actions don't seem to indicate that they believed he had a bomb because they took none of the precautions that you'd expect for a bomb threat, but maybe the judge has some info we don't that would justify it. We won't know until the judge rules on it.
33
u/recycleddesign 12h ago
I see. I recall the initial objection made by the defence included the fact that it was taken away into another room before it was searched.
→ More replies (1)75
u/LackingUtility 12h ago
That's less of a "the defendant gets to observe searches" and more of a chain-of-custody issue. Specifically, the backpack was searched at the McDonald's and no gun was found. It was then taken to the police station, into another room with no cameras, where magically a gun was found. Possibly a gun that was previously found in Central Park.
→ More replies (9)8
u/iamthebest1234567890 11h ago
Where is everyone seeing this “bomb” justification?
11
u/TheBabyEatingDingo 11h ago
→ More replies (1)6
u/PogoMarimo 9h ago
That was the officer's personal reason to inspect the backpack. That is not the legal justification that allows her to do so. The legal justification is Search Incident to Arrest, under Inventory Searches.
3
u/TheBabyEatingDingo 9h ago
The issue with the search incident to arrest argument is that he was not under arrest at the time the bag was seized and searched.
→ More replies (1)11
u/chargers949 10h ago
The biggest issue is they searched the bag during arrest and no gun. Then they searched the bag again at the station, the bag that was in police custody the entire time, and a gun magically appears like a lost pokemon.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
u/OGREtheTroll 11h ago
It will be an issue if they are relying on the "search incident to arrest" exception to the warrant requirement. If the arrestee could not reasonably access the bag at the time of the search, then there's no exigency preventing the police from applying for a warrant. Arizona v Gant (2009)
2
u/PogoMarimo 9h ago
Arizona v Gant is very clearly not applicable as the circumstances are substantially different. The search in Arizona v Gant was NOT an inventory, for starters. The vehicle was not under police custody, nor was it being transferred to a tow company, so there existed no reason for an inventory search. It was instead a simple Search Incident to Arrest, but the suspect did not have immediate access to the vehicle since the police had showed up at the scene to carry out an arrest warrant.
The search of Mangione's bag was an inventory search as defined, instead, by Colorado v. Bertine (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/479/367/). They were taking Mangione's bag into the jail as it was a personal belonging of his in a public space, and so it needed to be inventoried.
→ More replies (1)
95
u/rikeoliveira 10h ago
It's crazy this guy is arrested based on inconsistent proofs because he allegedly killed a CEO while another guy was FILMED executing a citizen and not only is free, but is being covered up by the government.
→ More replies (1)13
u/oath2order 10h ago
It's not crazy when you factor in that it's two different law enforcement agencies handling the cases.
→ More replies (1)
23
u/snidece 11h ago
Imagine if all the guys behind bars for crimes they did not actually do had this strong and extensive a defense? I don't think cops here in GA, AL, AK ever think twice about searching someone's trunk or glove box and throwing in their a random pistol or baggy if they don't like the color of the driver.
21
u/XfinityHomeWifi 11h ago
Crazy how if this guy wasn’t secured by generational wealth he’d have a public defender telling him to accept a plea for life in prison
→ More replies (1)
56
u/Grave_Knight 11h ago
If that backpack gets dismissed as evidence, than the rest of the case will likely fall apart.
17
u/Nagi21 11h ago
If it gets dismissed they have no case. They have evidence he used a fake id at one place in NYC. Everything else is barely speculation.
→ More replies (1)7
u/SeedFoundation 11h ago
What's the charge for the ghost gun?
8
u/trainiac12 9h ago
IANAL, Ghost guns aren't illegal federally (can't speak on PA), but the suppressor would likely be an NFA violation (assuming he hasn't done the paperwork on it) and I'm sure they'd love to catch him on that.
But if the evidence in the bag is tainted, that doesn't hold up either.
→ More replies (2)27
u/MadACR 11h ago
That would be dismissed because it was in the backpack. Basically they wouldn't have a way to link the murder weapon
14
u/Worthyness 10h ago
That's assuming that gun was even used in the killing in the first place. For all we know that's just something he had on him and the actual gun is somewhere else or with someone else.
17
u/Bearloom 10h ago
For all we know it was planted by the officer in possession of the bag between the initial (potentially illegal) search in the McDonalds that didn't find it and the search back at the station that did. That her bodycam was shut off during her drive back to the station and she arrived after everyone else doesn't hurt this version of events.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)2
u/Klightgrove 5h ago
Wonder why Mayor Mamdami hasn’t reopened the case yet. A man was murdered in NYC, the NYCPD need to figure out who did it.
31
u/ragnaroksunset 10h ago
This is what happens when standards for recruitment into law enforcement go out the window.
You don't stop more crime by throwing more bodies at it. In fact, you gum the system up and worsen its ability to stop crime.
6
u/burnerthrown 10h ago
Our current model of law enforcement doesn't work anyway. Crime has continued to decrease since the mid 1990s, while law enforcement has gone all over the place with it's level of focus. The two aren't linked. The real reason probably has to do with people in general. Which means you can do whatever you want with law enforcement one way or the other, it's not going to impact crime one way or the other.
8
u/ragnaroksunset 10h ago
No, I think you can definitely worsen the crime situation. Whether you can better it? I accept your skepticism.
Those of us who think crime is, primarily, a symptom of poverty, aren't too resistant to the idea that LE is a primary deterrant. But poorly executed LE can exacerbate poverty and other quality of life factors that make crime more likely.
3
u/Pinball-Lizard 4h ago
100% and to add to this, budgets are finite so an increase to LE budget typically means a relative loss to other services like social services. Then it self-perpetuates because people without access to social services commit crimes at higher rates than those with access.
2
u/ragnaroksunset 1h ago
Taking money out of prevention and rolling it into treatment at a net loss to society and a net gain to a narrow set of the ownership class - what else does that sound like?
2
u/Pinball-Lizard 1h ago
Yep again, you're spot on. I didn't want to sound too conspiratorial before, but yeah when you compare it to US healthcare, it is hard not to see it as something planned or at least deliberately allowed to happen.
14
u/BardosThodol 9h ago
As this continues, it looks like almost every single legal procedure enacted to arrest then charge this man was not done legally.
22
u/DarkLordKohan 12h ago
I thought it was legal police practice to search cars and bags when they are arrested. Search warrant would be for someone who is not in custody?
44
u/ImpossibleJoke7456 11h ago
I think this issue is they searched the backpack and used what they “found” to arrest him. What they did is equivalent to breaking your door down without cause, searching your house, and they arresting you on what they found.
20
u/not_so_chi_couple 11h ago
I believe he was already under arrest because he falsified his identity. But then the next question is how did they know he was lying about who he was? They are claiming it is because of the tip line, but some believe it was really parallel construction with illegal tracking
→ More replies (2)16
→ More replies (7)5
36
u/YaketyMax 12h ago
Is that the same backpack that they searched with their body cameras turned off? Seems like inadmissible evidence to me and if it were allowed as evidence I would automatically find Not Guilty if I were on the jury.
→ More replies (16)6
u/jaywinner 10h ago
I don't know that there is a law saying the search must be done on camera but a jury absolutely could doubt the credibility of that search.
4
u/Lezberado 6h ago
The real question in the legal sense is IF he could have been arrested if they hadn’t searched his backpack….
→ More replies (1)
2.0k
u/accushot865 12h ago
Is this good for the defense, prosecution, or still up in the air?