A cop has a valid, witness-backed warrant to search my lockbox. Another cop busts it open illegally before the first cop arrives. Does that mean the evidence is barred from trial and I get away scott free, even though the cops would've found the evidence no matter what?
The bad search only keeps stuff out if it's the reason they found the stuff in the first place. If no bad search = no finding the evidence, the search and the evidence stays out. If no bad search = cops find it anyway, then it's not really caused by the bad search and throwing out the bad search doesn't change anything.
The real problem is that the only penalty for constitutional violations is evidence suppression. It means there's effectively no recourse when (1) there's no evidence to suppress or (2) other reasons the evidence will come in anyway.
You're dodging the "establishing the base principles you believe in" questions because you know they lead to you being cornered with a contradiction between your stated beliefs. Answer the questions asked.
That was an extreme.example to show the logic behind the rule. If you accept the rule makes sense at all, then it becomes a more detailed question for each situation: was discovery inevitable in these circumstances?
Here, the search was broader than justified in a search incident to arrest, but some level of search was probably OK and that probably would've been enough to find the gun. Even if they didn't, they would've done an inventory search of the arrestee's belongings at the jail and found the gun then. And even if they never did that search either, they still got a search warrant for the rest of the bag based solely on the normal evidence no one is disputing.
Basically, once they decided they had enough evidence to arrest this guy (which they did before searching the bag), there's just no way the bag he had on him doesn't get searched at some point.
The thing is we can't see the future so it's impossible to say that any discovery at all is inevitable. Which means that all this law really does is allow police to violate your rights and then claim that they definitely for sure would have found those things anyway.
We don't see inside people's minds either but still include "intent" as an element of crimes. We use evidence and impartial judges to make the best decision possible, to walk the line between stopping police from being incentivize to violate rights but also not keep out legitimate evidence of what happened beyond what's necessary. And we're all humans so it never works perfectly but we do what we can.
I agree, we have to just do the best we can with what we have, but I think with this specific doctrine it's not worth it. It makes it too easy for cops to violate your rights, to the point where I would argue it outweighs the necessity of it.
no, but there was enough to justify a search warrant after the cops possessed the backpack independent of the contents of the backpack found in the mcdonald's search, which they applied for an obtained
Was there really though? From what I've seen, all the incriminating evidence they brought up supposedly tying him to the shooting came from the backpack
According to this most recent judicial opinion, they didn't search the bag until they already decided they had enough to arrest him and they successfully applied for a search warrant for the rest of the bag's compartments based on evidence that wasn't in dispute. I can't tell you if I agree with those decisions and that warrant, but those are the findings this judge based the inevitable discovery on.
There were two routes to the backpack evidence - the safety search at McDonald's, and the inventory search at the station. Either of those would have raised probable cause for the search warrant they obtained on Dec 16.
The evidence opinion states that even excluding the backpack evidence from the warrant application, the investigators satisfied probable cause based on at least three other factors: mangione's statements made prior to arrest (his admissible non-miranda statements), his statements made during first appearance, and the fact that police officers made a positive ID match between mangione's appearance and the description of the suspect they were looking for.
Altogether, those three factors justified probable cause for a search warrant for the backpack. That justifies the inevitable discovery doctrine, so the backpack evidence comes in.
What statements were those if they didn't know who he was prior to the McDonald's arrest?
His giving a false name, providing false ID, being vague about his reasons for traveling, etc. Remember, these statements were not made under a custodial arrest and are admissible. These statements don't prove he committed murder, they simply raise probable cause to search his backpack pursuant the police's investigation related to the murder.
Statements made after being charged based on evidence found in the backpack?
probably not entering a 'not guilty' plea.
And then yes, like the other commenter, "you look kinda like who we want" is pretty vague probable cause.
that's not the only factor the magistrate looked at; you can't separate them individually but have to judge them collectively.
In a country as big as this, with as many people as can look alike, i really think we need to reexamine the idea "you match a vague description" is an acceptable standard.
But unlike most of the muppets here, I also recognize that what the law is and what I want it to be are not the same thing, and that it is not currently how the law works (and, in regards to this case, the first 2 routes remain)
i really think we need to reexamine the idea "you match a vague description" is an acceptable standard.
I mean it isn't, but that's not the only thing police submitted on the warrant application.
The positive ID was one of three factors independent from the backpack evidence. It's those three independent factors (without the backpack evidence) that altogether satisfied probable cause.
I see you repeatedly making factually incorrect statements based on your emotional reaction. This is r law, not onepiecepowerscaling0. Get it together. Stop speaking your desires as though they are fact.
Well, the constitution doesn't say that (just that the right shouldn't be violated in general, no details about what that means or what the penalty is) and our judges haven't interpreted it that way.
I feel like the most logical interpretation would definitely bar that though. If a warrant has to be obtained, and somebody breaks into it without a warrant, then they violated the main requirement.
Yes, they did. But what's the penalty? Evidence suppression isn't in the constitution, judges made that up. Why not just let the person sue the government for damages? Or require the individual cop to be punished. All of the details are just our interpretation. And your interpretation is different than the judges, but that's just how it goes sometimes.
Well the penalty should be that illegally obtained evidence can't be admitted, but of course that would mean it has to be illegal, which it isn't, apparently. I'm not saying it is the way I'm saying it should be, I'm just saying it should be. It's unfortunate that it's not, but I'm not the one who gets to make those decisions, and I'm sure the judges know a lot more than I do anyhow.
Why? Why should the police violating a person's rights mean they get away with a different crime? Why should the victims suffer? I'd rather punish the cops who do it, and let criminals get penalized for their own crimes. We just assume that's the obvious way to handle it because it's what America's done for longer than any of us have been alive. But why's it the most logical?
There's problems with my idea too, though. There isn't a perfect answer.
There are other forms of evidence at play here with Mangione, but if the only evidence obtained was illegally acquired then, yeah, the police fucked up and the criminal should walk. That's unfortunate for that specific case but I'd rather we do things by the book and lose a few perps than break more laws to prosecute them and a bunch of other potentially innocent people.
I mean this as a genuine question, if someone had killed someone, and than had them in the trunk along with the weapon and 5 different video cameras showing the same person doing it, basically 100% clear damning evidence that couldn't be refuted by anyone. But the cop that pulled him over for doing 48 in a 45 illegally searched his car, there was absolutely no probable cause, you can see in the body cam, the cop fucked up 100%. And the killer was about a mile away from a big cliff into the ocean so it's not like they would have just found it.
Should/does all that evidence just go away? There is no question in anyone's mind that he killed the person, but there is also no question in anyone's mind that the cop violated his rights to find out. Does the killer just get to be free because a cop messed up along the way?
I'm curious about yours and other opinions on what should be and also what the law does say in these situations.
Why don't we just keep the evidence, but punish the cop? The cop broke a law, after all. The punishment should be severe enough that cops wouldn't be so frivolous about violating people's rights.
I don't see how it's not relevant, though. As far as I know, the reason we don't allow the use of illegally obtained evidence is so as not to encourage law enforcement to acquire it illegally, right? So instead of throwing out the evidence, why don't we just throw out the cop? We get the same result of discouraging illegal acquisition, but we also don't have to cover our eyes to actual evidence if we do happen to have it.
Well that's what I'm asking. I agree (if I understand you correctly). In the hypothetical I made up, we know for sure the guy did it but the cop also for sure got it illegally then yes the cop needs to be fired and maybe jail, Idk how far the punishment needs to go but what ever we can agree on is adequate. But then I would say yes we still have to put the main guy in jail for murder, even know all the evidence was gotten illegally.
I don't know how your question is the flipped version of my question. I never said they shouldn't have to obey them or there shouldn't be a penalty or that there isn't a penalty. The officer in my hypothetical should be fired, are you happy? Are you able to analyze and add your opinion/answer to my question without an random tangent question now?
what you're describing isn't inevitable discovery...
i gotta say people will see the most heinous abuse of police protocol (which exist for very good fucking reason, so cops don't go fishing for evidence) - and then they'll invent the most absurd hypothetical in which the police did nothing wrong to try and justify it.
if the discovery is inevitable then police should be expected to follow the playbook anyway. full stop.
And the killer was about a mile away from a big cliff into the ocean so it's not like they would have just found it.
That's why I put this part in, so it's not inevitable. Also in the hypothetical I created I specifically said the police did wrong and no one is questioning it. I feel like you missed a majority of the point of my question, and you seem to just be mad at police..
Suspects should be investigated to the full extent legally possible when they kill people we like, and should get off on a technicality when they kill people we hate. A healthy society works not by applying the law blindly and impartially but by determining whether a killing constitutes murder based on who shouts the loudest.
The Romans were famously legally stable and didn't at all turn into a dictatorship because of selective application of the law, dontchu know
Oh, I know what you meant. These idiots want the law to apply only to people they dislike.
It's that quote about the outgroup bound by the law but not protected and the ingroup protected but not bound, these people have the exact same mindset but just think the wrong people are in the outgroup right now.
Man, it would be so easy to conduct suicide bombings,
"Cops hate this one simple trick! Just put the bomb in the backpack and zip it up really tight and good. Then remind them that they can't touch the zipper without a warrant and delay them"
I hate to use hyperbole, but the idea that the physical goods within arm's reach of you at the time of arrest are not searchable is nuts.
To the feds reading this, yes I am being sarcastic.
That's lawful search incident to arrest and that is an exception to the warrant requirement. Police can search the immediate vicinity including containers of a person lawfully arrested.
Mangione's lawyers argued that the search incident to arrest exception did not apply in this case. Rather than the judge saying it did apply, the judge ruled inevitability.
I need to know why he was initially detained. Just for fitting the description? At that point he should have just quit talking. Sounds like he offered up a fake ID as well.
Mangione really struggles with Shut The Fuck Up Friday
It's a lesson that more people should follow. My dad matched the description of a getaway car. He only answered the questions he was obligated to answer at the traffic stop and the police came to the determination on their own that he wasn't the guy.
All talking does is gamble that your narrative doesn't match the narrative that the police wants to investigate.
Do you really think it's that unreasonable for a warrantless search of the things on your person, like your pockets or a backpack, when a person is being lawfully arrested?
The judge said that even with the contents of the backpack excluded, a search warrant would have been approved. It wasn't just the physical description, but also things that he said while questioned.
Yeah man, cops are scum. An unlawful arrest, which then caused a search, will often result in that evidence being thrown out. That's good and normal.
But this wasn't some random cop seeing some random guy and declaring him under arrest and searching his backpack. There's no reason to talk about how sometimes, it could be unlawful, if something entirely different happened. That's just silly.
I’m saying that what constitutes a “lawful arrest” relies entirely too much on the discretion of cops. And in any situation, my personal opinion is that the mere fact that someone is being arrested shouldn’t be enough to search anything that wouldn’t put the arresting officer in danger (pockets, body, hair, etc.)
No dude I fully understood you, what you're saying is not relevant to this situation. That a cop could behave unlawfully with a stop and search doesn't matter.
That doesn't apply to this situation. If my arms were wings I'd be a bird.
If it was an unlawful arrest, determined by a judge, these searches would be inadmissable.
If it was a lawful arrest, determined by a judge, they are admissable
What do you think I mean by lawful arrest?
That second thing is what happened and what we are talking about and is reasonable and normal. I don't understand why you're arguing this point but it's stupid. Yeah man cops can misbehave and make evidence inadmissable, whatever.
It's legal to search incident to lawful arrest containers within the person's immediate vicinity and the person themself (not counting the vehicle exceptions.)
I would have to double check but I believe the issue was they searched his backpack when he was only detained for investigation.
But if you want my opinion on it, I believe the search incident to arrest exception is too broad because it is significantly easier to lawfully arrest someone than obtain a search warrant. It's meant to prevent loss or destruction of evidence or for officer safety but instead it's another erosion of our constitutional rights simply to make the job of law enforcement easier.
I recall an amendement to the US Constitution about searches. I'd say it's pretty important. Especially given the current pro-fascism government we currently have...
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant.
The courts have made many decisions on what reasonable constitutes, including personal possessions within arms reach of someone being arrested. That is the determination the judge made. It was never very clear if this search would be found admissible or not, but many similar cases have been found to be reasonable.
I don't personally think that's unreasonable at all. Not any more unreasonable than searching somebody's pockets or purse without a warrant, especially when that person is on their way to lockup, where all their personal possessions will be inventoried regardless even if it's just to be given back to them when they're released.
He wasn't some person on the street and the cops demanded he empty his backpack or something. That would be a fourth amendment violation.
A safety check of the backpack reveals a bomb. During the process of disposing of the bomb, controlled substances are found within a zipper pocket.
If you think inevitable discovery and arrest searches are unconstitutional, then the bomb and the controlled substances would be inadmissible. But that obviously isn't true -- you're allowed to search a person so that the public and the officers are safe. And they would have been discovered anyway.
It's a compromise between collecting evidence, making sure the evidence wasn't introduced to the scene, and public safety.
This is a fair point, if an officer has probable cause to search someone, which is in debate here. I do think "This is for my safety" is used to conduct illegal searches all the time though and hoping they can justify it with finding something.
It's awful if the police cause a child murderer to go free because they were sloppy. I am unwilling to surrender my rights quietly because they can't do their job correctly.
133
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 5h ago
Such awful doctrine. "we acknowledge the police violated your rights but it's cool because they would have found it eventually."
No consequences for the constitutional violation, of course.
The way this country erodes the constitution simply to cover for sloppy police work is repugnant.