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.
They didn’t read him his rights, I was there.
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
They searched his bag without a warrant.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Thanks for explaining. The article alone didn’t make it sound like the defense had a leg to stand on, but your wording shows that maybe they can get something here…
If he wasn’t detained, why was he blocked in, and why would he have given ID to the pigs? I think we would want to see body camera footage on this, and so would the judge, and depending on the details it’s quite possible that the fake ID charge and evidence could all be suppressed. Judges tend to be overly kind to the pigs, but not always.
And it doesn’t even matter if the pigs said or didn’t say “You’re detained.” If they asked him for ID but a reasonable person in his view would not have felt like they were free to leave, that was a detention, and the legal questions would need to be addressed.
and why would he have given ID to the pigs?
I don’t know what the law is in Pennsylvania, but some states have a law that you must present ID on request if you have it. Nearly all jurisdictions require you to correctly state your name and address to police on request.
And the police here used a ruse that this was all just a McDonald’s loitering complaint. The cop admitted on the stand that the loitering thing was a lie. But that’s okay. Remember: the cops are allowed to lie to you, but you are not allowed to lie to the cops.
Remember also: stating the false name orally is a separate crime from the forged instrument.
So bottom line, the failure to Mirandize could suppress the statements where he confessed to the fake ID and to the fake name. But it’s not going to toss those charges. And it doesn’t suppress the action of handing over the ID, because that’s not a statement.
So there’s a pretty strong case for the ID charge even without the statements.
they get pretty aggressive if you dont have an ID on you
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!
Idk about yall but I’ve been arrested more than once and every time, no cop “read me my rights” - you just sign something when you get to jail.
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).
Then that was probably in the wrong from the cops.
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!
Even if his arrest is thrown out, can’t he be re-arrested for the alleged assassination?
Edit: I could just read. Just throw out some evidence during the arrest.
The article itself didn’t do a good job of explaining, but judges can punish the prosecution for false arrests. There are several issues.
The state claims he wasn’t detained, he voluntarily presented a fake ID, and then they arrested him for that. Later they held him for murder. That’s their claim… The defense is saying no, they detained him first (i.e., for murder), and he unwillingly gave them a fake ID and spoke to them.
One possible outcome: The judge sides with the prosecution that he wasn’t detained at first.
Another possible outcome: The judge sides with the defense and says that the prosecution needs to justify the initial detention, because the fake ID happened later. Then presumably the prosecution says that the cops were arresting him for murder. If they had probable cause or an arrest warrant, they could do that. So they’ll have to show evidence of that in court. If they can’t, then probably anything he said will be thrown out (no Miranda) and any evidence seized from his backpack will be inadmissible in any court case (unlawful search and seizure). Even if they can, then anything he said will still be thrown out (no Miranda).
There are some less likely outcomes as well, if somehow the defense could show that the pigs were acting with malice or something, but based on what we’ve seen so far, let’s suppose one of the above is what usually happens in situations like this. And usually the judge sides with the prosecutors.
Didn’t the Supreme Court decision on Miranda come out before this? So him not having his rights read doesn’t matter?
looks like they are trying to find something charge him with,anything.
they can declare a mistrail, the courts, but that is more risky as it is, because its already on shakey ground.
Betteridge’s law says “No”.
Is that the one where any question in a headline is almost always answered with ‘No.’?
…i’m still sure he was helping me edit some legacy ‘Pascal’ coding…
I don’t know if that matters really.
I mean… if you wanna go to trial, it does.
On the one hand, it sucks that sometimes really bad people who’ve done really bad things go free because of a seemingly minor technicality.
On the other, there’s a set process to help keep the law fair. Miranda rights and the need to voice them to suspects when they’re arrested exist because police will totally take advantage of arrestees, and because police have acted unethically towards ignorant people who don’t know what rights they retain when arrested.
I’m confident Luigi didn’t need a reminder of his rights when arrested, but if the cops really thought they were arresting the killer of that United Health CEO, then there’s no excuse for them not bringing their A-game with how high profile it was all bound to be. It’d be really embarrassing for them if they missed that tiny detail.
Edit: spelling/grammar
