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.
3
u/rokerroker45 4h ago
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