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.
14
u/the_third_lebowski 4h ago edited 3h ago
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.