Luigi Mangione

Now is a good time to remind people to never ever agree to a police search. They're gonna phrase things weird and take advantage of your good nature. Never agree to any sort of search.

Hell, even if they have a warrant I'm tempted to explicitly say I don't consent. I'm not going to resist but I'm gonna make it clear I'm not consenting. Because how the hell do I even verify a warrant is real? I have no idea, and I certainly wouldn't be able to find out if they're at my door.

Be aware though, in Georgia there is "implied consent" with regards to roadside breathalyzer tests. If you get in that situation, remember I'm just a random lemming and not a lawyer. Other states might have similar things.

Getting arrested in Pennsyltucky by imbreds was a genius move.

Because no one else has yet commented this:

Fuck The Police.

Let's say that Mangione committed the crime.

My understanding is that he gave cops a fake ID when they questioned him on reasonable suspicion (the basis of which was a tip from an employee). That is something that yes, he can be arrested for. And he can be personally searched after that arrest. But at that point, he can no longer get a gun out of his bag, and cops have control of it, so he can't destroy evidence/get a weapon from it; so searching the bag should be out at that time. So, my understanding, based on case law, is that they would have needed a warrant to search it at that time, as the contents of the bag aren't related to the reason he's been arrested. You aren't supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person's car or belongings (e.g., arrest you for suspicion of drunk driving, then search your car to find evidence of burglaries).

In theory, without the warrant, the search and everything from the search should be out. Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack, it should be completely excluded from the case. I'm sure that the DA is going to argue that there's some exception that allows a warrantless search, but I can't say what that argument will be. If the evidence is allowed in, his defense attorney is going to have to object every single time that prosecutors refer to it, for any reason, in order to preserve the option to claim that evidence was improperly admitted in an appeal. (Which they should absolutely do, if it goes that far!)

Federal rules of evidence is pretty complicated stuff. But goddamn, does it look like someone fucked up bad on a really high profile case.

Eat the rich

Spoiled Evidence....

I've been saying all along everything happened too quick for him to be the actual guy. It was pretty clear to me they were desperate to make an example of someone quickly and not accurately.

I love the smell of "Reasonable Doubt" in the morning

They need to play 12 Angry Men for every jury before deliberation, but play it twice for this particular jury. That's not the kind of evidence you send a kid to the chair over.

It doesn't matter whether he did or did not do it just like it won't matter what evidence does or does not exist.

An example to be made was chosen, and it will be made.

The only question at this point is how will we react to that example.

It's like the dumbest and laziest people set out to frame this guy

So the cops that qoute "just knew" they had the right guy by looking at him also planted key evidence?

So convenient that your suspect doesn't bother hiding key evidence and that you get a hunch that is right on point...