One year after the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the court is now weighing whether police violated alleged gunman Luigi Mangione’s Miranda rights.
The key dispute is that the State thinks that Mangione wasn’t “detained” until after the ID check came back as fake. Mr. Mangione argues that he was “detained” from the very start of the interaction because the police positioned themselves to block his only route of exit.
In between those two times, Mangione made some statements that the defense would like to suppress, but nothing like a full confession or anything.
There may also be an issue that the first Miranda warning that the cop gave in the McDonald’s was only the first half of the warning. The right to remain silent part, but not the attorney part. I haven’t followed closely enough to know if the defense is arguing that or not.
They want the search of his bag to be ruled out as evidence. The bag contained the murder weapon and his personal notes, which were likely incriminating.
That’s actually a much bigger deal for Mangione at this hearing than the Miranda warning issue.
That seems like more of an uphill battle. Even if the search incident to arrest is illegal, the defense also has to prove that the feds would not have inevitably gotten the search warrant for the backpack anyway.
The sequence of events with the backpack was:
-
12 minutes into the McDonald’s interaction, the cops moved the backpack some distance away from him, and put themselves between Mangione and the backpack.
-
While still in the McDonald’s a local cop opened the backpack, searched all the inside compartments, and found the key items, including the gun. The cops say this was an inventory search incident to arrest.
-
She then put the gun back in the backpack and zipped it back up. This is a clue that the cops were actually worried about the legality of the search.
-
They took the whole backpack back to the police station.
-
The same cop then searched the backpack again at the police station, and magically found the same gun that she had put back into the backpack. Still no warrant.
-
7 hours later, Altoona PD applied for and received a warrant to search the backpack.
Despite the preposterousness of this sequence, if the prosecution can show that the team that applied for the warrant was not excessively tainted by prior knowledge of the gun or notebook, they can probably still use the evidence.
-
How do you know it’s the murder weapon? Why do you think the notes are likely incriminating?
Well I’m essentially citing the article, but your questions are not relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Alright, they do call the notes that, but calling that gun “the murder weapon” is inappropriate. It robs Mangione of his presumption of innocence.
Police searched Mangione’s backpack during the course of that arrest and found a 9 mm handgun and a notebook with potentially incriminating entries, among other items.
I have a much bigger problem with calling that gun “the murder weapon” anyways. That’s the bigger issue of the two.
I’m not a court of law. I don’t owe Mangione anything. Go argue your point to someone who cares.
Explain to us what point you were trying to make by misrepresenting allegations as established fact, then.
I was clarifying for the commenter why Mangione’s lawyers were trying to argue that he was inappropriately detained. He suggested it was because of statements made that he wants to retract. I suggested it was more likely because they wanted the search of his bag and the discovery of the murder weapon or notes thrown out.
Also fuck off with this misrepresentation of facts crap. I don’t owe Luigi or you anything. If I think he committed the murder then I can shout it from the rooftops if I want to. Welcome to the Court of Public Opinion! We all know he did it it, and with the gun from his bag. Lawyers in court have to argue and prove a high bar to prosecute. I on the other hand do not!
deleted by creator
They’re only required to read you your rights if they plan on questioning you AND submitting your answers as evidence in court.
If they don’t ask you any questions, but you chose to speak entirely on your own. Those words can be used against you.
If they do ask you questions but haven’t informed you of your rights; your answers/statements become inadmissible in court.
This is correct and most people don’t know this. Your Miranda rights protect you against self-incrimination during questioning. They are not rights which must be read to you upon arrest. Some cops (and TV shows) use them this way. However, as ‘spontaneous utterances’ are recognized by the court, you only need to be advised of your rights prior to incriminating questions being asked.
That’s allowed, so long as they do not question you. If they question you, and they do not mirandize you first, the things you say are potentially inadmissible (for now,I guess, who knows what the tribunal of six will get up to in the next year or two).
Would be hilarious if he got off on a technicality the day before another Healthcare CEO was taken out.
Didn’t SCOTUS rule, relatively recently, that not being mirandized can no longer be used as a reason for a case to be dismissed?
Edit: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/supreme-court-rejects-promise-miranda-rights
I don’t know if that’s what this ruling means, but maybe someone with a law background could explain better
I’m not a lawyer.
Today, in Vega v. Tekoh, the court backtracked substantially on its Miranda promise. In Vega, the court held 6-3 (over an excellent dissent by Justice Elena Kagan) that an individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights, even where a criminal jury finds them not guilty of any crime. By denying people whose rights are violated the ability to seek redress under our country’s most important civil rights statute, the court has further widened the gap between the guarantees found in the Bill of Rights and the people’s ability to hold government officials accountable for violating them.
I take this to mean that cops just got immunity from being sued if they violate procedure, specifically by failing to Mirandize a suspect during an arrest. It’s a big deal for accountability, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the validity of gathered evidence (speech after arrest) brought against said suspect, if this step is skipped.
I’m not going to bother breaking down the SCOTUS ruling remarks; they’re corrupt as hell and I don’t need that kind of mental anguish today.
You can presumably still sue the municipality and police department and whatnot, just not the individual cop. And I’m full on board with cop accountability, but this one I’m okay with. That’s poor training, that’s the department’s fault, and it doesn’t take away the rights of any potentially plaintiff in a civil suit. In reality, you aren’t getting anything from the specific cop, 99 times out of 100.
Nope I was there they only said drop the filetOfish and put your hands up.
Not one word about his rights, and they took his fries.
you mean egg McMuffin and hash browns (he was arrested at like 9 am) but things get blurry it’s been a while, I understand.
It’s wild, when I was hanging out with Luigi in my place on the West Coast on the night of December 4th, 2024, he told me “I sure like FiletOfish sandwiches, I am thinking of heading out to Altoona, Pennsylvania to my favorite McDonalds there to get one in a few days. I can do this because I know my rights.”
Not all heroes wear capes. Some have rubber necks. 😌
You have the right to a free refill. If you choose to wave this right, you may not return to claim it on a future visit.
You have the right to a dirty bathroom. If you do not have diarrhea, it will be provided for you.
Do you understand the meal numbers may have changed, and that you must check the menu?
He’s no gunman, alleged or not! He’s just got two guns for arms and a smile that can’t be beat!
Betteridge’s law says “No”.
Is that the one where any question in a headline is almost always answered with ‘No.’?
To the folks who are keeping up on the story, did the McDonalds snitch ever get that bounty? Because if nothing else, it will feel like justice if that person gets nothing for selling out Mangione to the fucking pigs.
I can’t find any update since December of last year. I suspect they won’t see a dime.
I don’t know if that matters really.
