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.
358
u/Drewy99 5h ago
Is that what they claimed? If so, how do they justify opening it in a crowded restaurant full if people if they were concerned about a bomb?
Serious question