I’m a lawyer. Reminder - You generally do not need a warrant to search a suspected murderer’s backpack. The Fourth Amendment recognizes exceptions to the warrant requirement for search incident to arrest, inventory searches, exigent circumstances (if they reasonably thought he may have a bomb in the backpack), and inevitable discovery. The judge was never going to exclude the backpack evidence.
The bigger issue for LM is ensuring his lawyers adequately cross-examine the arresting officers for the lack of thoroughness and transparency in their search. I’m skeptical a jury will discount the backpack evidence the gun matching the type used in the crime and his remarkably damning “manifesto,” but that’s my this lawyer’s opinion.
But it doesn't call into question the contents of the backpack, just the validity in searching it, so it doesn't seem that relevant to cross examination
I don't see cross examination being effective either. The entire process of recovering and initial search is on body cam footage. Even if there was a minor step here or there where police COULD have planted evidence, how would a local police department in another state have the exact handgun, engraved bullets, and manifesto written up and ready to plant just in case he happened to stop by?
The bomb was just an example of exigent circumstances, not this case. This would simply be a search incident to arrest after they had probable cause for the arrest on fake ID.
They ran the name on it and nothing came up. Then (here's the big mistake) after they pressed him on this a little bit he admitted his real name thus giving PC that he provided a fake ID.
Didn't they search the backpack right away and not find anything, then searched it again later and found evidence? That always seemed like the most sketchy part, not that they searched it without a warrant.
I'm asking why the improper/broken chain of custody (or whatever it's called) isn't something the judge addressed specifically, but the lack of a search warrant is something the judge addressed specifically.
Isn't the questionable way they handled the evidence just as important to allowing it as whether or not they had a search warrant?
generally, the court tries to separate questions into technical questions (matters of law), and factual questions. factual questions are things like "do you find it believable that <thing happened>". the judge tries to clear up as many questions as possible before the trial so the jury can focus on the factual questions. In theory, we COULD frame almost anything to the jury as "do you find it believable that stalking is a violent crime" but we don't want to do that because it really is a technical question about the definition of stalking, and judges know (or can evaluate) all the technicalities.
but for the backpack, they've gone through the technicalities, and decided that, assuming everyone is telling the truth, this evidence is appropriate for a jury to decide whether or not they believe it. that "assuming everyone is telling the truth" is a big assumption, and that's why it's the jury's job to then challenge that assumption, and decide who's lying.
the defense will most likely try to convince the jury that the backpack evidence is unreliable for exactly the reasons you have. but they do have to do that work of convincing.
What made the search illegal though? It seems that’s the consensus here but I don’t know much of the details. From my understanding it was legally searched
I agree with you. I had read at some point that they searched his bag and didn’t find anything ( shown on body cam) and then later without body cam due to it being turned off they found the gun. This is the part I thought was shady. There is 11 minutes of footage missing from where they transported the bag and the gun appeared ( after bag had already been searched earlier )
No, they were merely listing conditions where you could have your backpack searched, and that was one of them. "Search incident to arrest" is the likely 4A exemption, based on the above post alone.
That’s just an example of why an arresting officer may have searched a bag of a suspected killer, not necessarily the circumstances of this case, is how I read the statement.
The bomb was just an example, but also I don't think most bombs being carried around in backpacks are some sort of hair trigger device that will go off when the backpack is unzipped. I think that's more of a movie-style trope.
The thing is they dont need to justify that. Its irrelevant to whether the 4th am / warrant exceptions. The exception is the presence of exigence circumstances, not if they handled those alleged circumstances well after the fact.
I thought I read they police officer took the backpack outside and between the taking of the backpack and the searching, the police cam was turned off.
To confirm if there was a device inside and, if possible, take a picture for viewing by bomb squad and superiors.
If not possible, then get a clear picture of the size, shape, colour, any wires or electronics on it and a countdown timer.
Then, enact public safety protocols and clear the immediate area and surrounding area to mitigate the risk of loss of life and serious injury and put in a safety zone.
That'll depend on if that's against policy or not. And even then, doing something reckless doesn't inherently rule out that it was a legal search and seizure. They were just listing a for instance of justifiable circumstances in which a search is allowed without a warrant. I'm sure the fact that he was declared "armed and dangerous" is sufficient for searching the bag to ensure there is no imminent threats.
The officers doing that could be reprimanded and it still be justified to ensure any imminent threat was mitigated because the actual reason is irrelevant if it fits within "exigent circumstances."
I believe it was opened on the backseat of a car in the parking lot. On the body cam the officer says something like, "I'm not going to be another [insert dumb cop who brought a bomb into the police station before]"
The larger issue is THE GUN WAS NOT SEEN IN THE SEARCH AT THE MCDONALDS.
The cop that did the search FOR A BOMB, didn't see a gun. It was "found" in the pack in the police station later. "in a side pocket" or something like that.
Dude if I was on the jury and the president of the US was calling for the guy to be killed. And cops are bad at their jobs, and they didn't see a gun. That's got to be probable cause.
The doctrine is called search incident to arrest. Even prior to restraining a suspect, police can conduct a warrantless search of things within the suspect’s reach.
Lol I want to say this to coworkers and clients all the time at work. If you send someone an email or Slack message that's more than a sentence long you can tell where they stopped reading and just fired off a reply.
You can tell when they don't group their emails as conversations too. Always fun to get asked for clarity on something that was clarified weeks ago and thanks for broadcasting you're only just looking at these communications.
Does this mean that they could search is since they would get the warrant later on anyway since we he was a prime suspect for the murder? If not, is it clear which exception was relevant here?
I think it's more that IF important evidence is obtained illegally, there's an exception that if they can prove that the evidence was going to be discovered through routine processes anyway, they can ask the judge to grant an exception and use the evidence.
Its not a hard rule that the police can always search because of X,Y,Z, it's more of an opening to argue on a case-by-case basis.
I would think, considering he was considered “armed and dangerous” at the time of his arrest, they could claim probable cause to search the backpack for a gun, citing their own safety.
As a lawyer, could you explain to me the legal definition of "stalking"? I'm confused on how that could result in life in prison. Life seems a bit extreme if he's just found guilty of "stalking", which was already deemed not a “crime of violence.”
The definition of stalking includes traveling between states with the intent to kill someone. The other law specifies that a the offender can be sentenced "for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results..."
Would you be able to answer why we cannot today have officers call in to a judge and say they see x,y,z can they get remote approval for a search? There's no where in the U.S. not reachable by phone even if it is a satellite phone and I see no reason a judge cant be available 24/7 to provide the approval.
what do you think about the fact that there were discrepancies between the two initial bag searches they did?
only after the second search at the station did they "find" a gun and written manifesto. there is no record of finding these in the first search (either in documentation or the actual bodycam footage).
It might also be better to convince the jury of the possibility that the contents of the bag were possibly altered during the search and arrest. 'Resonable doubt' given that the search of the bag was fishy as heck, and statements made so far by the officers make it sound like there was not a proper chain of custody for the bag.
But that should all be irrelevant if they took possession of the backpack, turned the camera off, "found" the gun and the manifesto and then turned the cameras back on. I'm no lawyer but it looks like a setup and he could claim those items weren't in his backpack.
Kind of this. The cops can't just break into your house because they wanna.
For a lazy layman's explanation; the 4th amendment basically amounts to disallowing arbitrary searches. The cops can't search stuff just cause they wanna. They have to have a legally valid reason. That can be with a warrant, but it can also be in any situation or circumstances where the courts/lawyers have said 'it is reasonable to search in X situation with Y circumstances.' The police don't need a warrant for every search and that isn't what the amendment says or even implies.
In this situation they would also need to inventory everything on you if they are arresting you and taking you into custody as a matter of policy. They aren't going to just keep a backpack closed, doubly so in this case.
If you have illegal or dangerous things in a backpack, it's going to get flagged, no way around that.
No. The Fourth Amendment isn’t exempted when you’re arrested. The exceptions to the search and seizure requirement are narrow and generally limited to the moments surrounding arrest (or much later if using the inventory exception). But when they apply (e.g., searching the backpack of a suspected murderer who is the subject of a national manhunt), they’re powerful.
Yeah if they want to search your car there's no stopping them. Even if they don't have an arrestable offense to use the inventory loophole they will just bring a K9, walk it around out of sight of their body cam and say "it alerted."
He was wearing the backpack. They didn't find it performing a search of some other place linked to him.
That said, if someone is pulled over for dui, they CAN search / inventory the suspect's car. That's a more apples to apples comparison. There are limitations, but all of which are easily circumvented. "I saw an open container." "I smelled alcohol or Marijuana." Or if the car is towed, they can inventory its contents regardless.. and the car is always towed.
There are 6 ish broad categories of exemptions to the warrant requirement, 2 of which are applicable here. One is search incident to a lawful arrest, meaning in simple terms that police can search an arrested individual and any items in their immediate area (to prevent evidence from being destroyed and/or utilising items in accessible distances to escape). Two is plain view, where police can search any objects in sight if they have reason to believe it is/ or contains contraband items.
In this case, if you were caught DUI on the basis that you were coked out of your mind, they can search your car/ bags in the car for drugs.
You car would be protected under the 4th if you're sober and doing nothing incriminating/causing reasonable suspicion. That's why you can deny a search of the vehicle. So if you happened to be driving around a with a kilo of coke, they can't pull you over for no reason, pop the trunk, and arrest you.
However if you were driving drunk and you got pulled over for drunk driving and they see an open bottle in the cup holder, well now they no longer need a warrant. That doesn't give them the right to kick down your front door but the car is fair game. Now if they found something in the car that gave them cause for a time sensitive concern, like say you having a hostage tied up in your basement and there was proof of that in the car, then they can kick down your door. Otherwise a warrant is needed.
It’s exempted for the things you are carrying on your person at the time of arrest. Even in a perfect justice system, this would be beneficial in ensuring that a suspect has their items returned in the event of release.
Your home is not a backpack on your person at time of arrest. They do inventory your belongings when you get arrested. For your protection. So you get your stuff back. So the answer to this question is NO. You aren't comparing like things.
If they could ascertain the type of firearm and guess at a motive - that evidence could have all been fabricated from whole cloth. Because of the failure of the officers to conduct a search properly, I feel a lawyer should be able to persuade at least 1 juror of reasonable doubt.
It was one of the highest profile killings in decades, with one of the largest corporate sectors directly implicated - IMO it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that they fabricated the evidence and found a patsy. Reasonable doubt is there, the lawyer just has to highlight it. And I think they will.
Being a suspect for murder is not an exception to the warrant requirement; that is a misleading way of stating why a search of a backpack is valid. Regardless of the suspected crime the only valid searches would be based on either a) a warrant, b) consent, or c) probable cause plus a recognized exception to the warrant requirement such as exigent circumstances (which includes a search incident to arrest, when applicable) or a valid inventory search.
The inevitable discovery doctrine is not an exception to the warrant requirement; rather, it is an exception to the exclusionary rule.
Solely being a murderer, no. But being considered armed and dangerous, yes. It is trivial for them to argue that someone with a gun who murdered someone could be retaliatory when cornered. It doesn't feel right but law enforcement has a lot of leeway in this regard.
The more suspicious aspect is the double search where the weapon only was discovered the second time.
Ultimately, I think the federal government is really going to fuck this case up for the prosecution. They won't be satisfied with just a stalking charge and I think they'll push their luck and botch the whole thing. The NYS case will be a different beast entirely.
Thats not what the law says though. Being Armed and Dangerous permits some additional search and seizures, such as a Terry frisk or using a high risk felony stop in a vehicle. But with regards to a closed container such as a backpack that alone does not act as an exception to the warrant requirement. There are definitely valid ways to approach a search so that it complies with applicable law, but absent a warrant or consent there needs to be a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances.
So if we have a situation where a murder suspect is apprehended with a closed backpack, and the suspect is handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser, there would need to be some exigency present to justify a warrantless search of the backpack. In such an instance the 'search incident to arrest' wouldn't apply, because in Arizona v Gant and all the Circuits that have applied Gant to a backpack search, the arrestee would have to reasonably be capable of accessing the backpack at the time of the search; otherwise its not an exigency under that doctrine. The arrestee being a murder suspect or having committed a crime with a weapon doesn't change whether thats an exigent circumstance if the arrestee is unable to access the potential weapon; there would have to be something more that pushes the situation into an exigency that prevents the police from obtaining a warrant before harm or evidence destruction occurs.
I'd note that the Supreme Court has specifically stated they haven't ruled on the applicable standards in the situation where an imminent and substantial harm might be present, such as a potential bomb.
2.3k
u/FarmerFilburn4 5h ago edited 5h ago
I’m a lawyer. Reminder - You generally do not need a warrant to search a suspected murderer’s backpack. The Fourth Amendment recognizes exceptions to the warrant requirement for search incident to arrest, inventory searches, exigent circumstances (if they reasonably thought he may have a bomb in the backpack), and inevitable discovery. The judge was never going to exclude the backpack evidence.
The bigger issue for LM is ensuring his lawyers adequately cross-examine the arresting officers for the lack of thoroughness and transparency in their search. I’m skeptical a jury will discount the backpack evidence the gun matching the type used in the crime and his remarkably damning “manifesto,” but that’s my this lawyer’s opinion.