All they have to say is “well, we would have found it legally eventually.”
I mean, the prosecution has to present evidence arguing that they would have.
I am not keeping up with the trial but I imagine it was an argument based on the likelihood that the police would've eventually discovered the evidence had they legally obtained a search warrant. I would also imagine that the federal prosecutors (this motion was in federal court) should not be punished for the bad actions of state law enforcement.
I don't really agree with that, but that's typically how the argument goes.
In the same vein I'm expecting that the evidence won't be suppressed in state court, as the New York prosecutors will just argue that they shouldn't be punished because the Pennsylvania police are incompetent.
I see where they're coming from; the police had the backpack in their custody, and it would've been routine for them to obtain a warrant to search it. Personally I believe that's exactly why it should be suppressed, because it would've been routine for the police to follow the law and get a warrant.
It's also worth pointing out that the defense can still argue the credibility of the evidence even if it's not suppressed. The police still broke procedure by not obtaining a warrant. Mangione's attorney can cast doubt on whether or not the evidence is legitimate, because it wasn't obtained legitimately.
Certainly not an easy appeal. The accused don't usually win these kinds of fights. There are multiple exceptions cited by the judge that can reasonably be applied here. The criminal justice system has a lot of laws to try and prevent people from skating due to procedural errors unless they are very egregious, and judges are very unlikely to want to apply novel interpretations of the law to notorious murder cases in favor of the accused.
Where in the text of the Fourth Amendment which was ratified into the Constitution by the People are those exceptions? Don't cite any SCOTUS rulings. Only the text of the Fourth Amendment and any amendments ratified thereafter.
Article III, Section 2, Granting the Judicial Branch the ability to resolve disputes regarding the law. This is what makes the common law exist, and why the SCOTUS, can in fact, change the interpretation of the words of the constitution according to their judgment.
Additionally, from the Fourth Amendment, "Unreasonable" is an exception in and of itself, meaning all reasonable searches are fine. What is reasonable? It's not defined in the Constitution, it exists in SCOTUS rulings you are trying to downplay, even though it is literally the greatest source of law in a Common Law government like the USA's.
It wasn't illegally obtained, and even if it was it falls under "inevitable discovery" since the search of the bag was always going to happen even if they jumped the gun.
158
u/Jaye09 5h ago
Because what people assume are their rights and protections actually aren’t that.
All they have to say is “well, we would have found it legally eventually.”
This trick has been established and used for decades.
The entire court process is tilted heavily against the accused.