News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
That's actually a much bigger deal for Mangione at this hearing than the Miranda warning issue.
That seems like more of an uphill battle. Even if the search incident to arrest is illegal, the defense also has to prove that the feds would not have inevitably gotten the search warrant for the backpack anyway.
The sequence of events with the backpack was:
12 minutes into the McDonald's interaction, the cops moved the backpack some distance away from him, and put themselves between Mangione and the backpack.
While still in the McDonald's a local cop opened the backpack, searched all the inside compartments, and found the key items, including the gun. The cops say this was an inventory search incident to arrest.
She then put the gun back in the backpack and zipped it back up. This is a clue that the cops were actually worried about the legality of the search.
They took the whole backpack back to the police station.
The same cop then searched the backpack again at the police station, and magically found the same gun that she had put back into the backpack. Still no warrant.
7 hours later, Altoona PD applied for and received a warrant to search the backpack.
Despite the preposterousness of this sequence, if the prosecution can show that the team that applied for the warrant was not excessively tainted by prior knowledge of the gun or notebook, they can probably still use the evidence.
The issue is with the initial search. They can only search after they have the warrant, and they allegedly made the arrest knowing they would find a gun, and then got the warrant, and then "found" the gun again.
Even if they claim that as long as they did find the gun, it means they were right - the problem is that, had they not known about the gun, they wouldn't have had grounds to arrest him, and therefore they wouldn't have a conviction. That sounds fine as long as you do find a murderer, but not for everyone else they search like that with no warrant.
Even assuming the gun was real and not planted, the legal issue is that they can't be allowed to fish for anyone they want, even if they happen to land on the right guy - after countless other innocents. Forcing them to let an actual murderer free would, presumably, push them to think twice before violating random people's rights.
And after that, they have to prove somehow that the gun wasn't planted while they had the bag and the owner couldn't check on them.
I think he is saying that if the people who applied for and recieved the warrant didn't know that the bag had been sesrched and such, then the judge is likely to decide it would have happened anyway. But that does still leave the question of if they would have arrested him without having seen what was in the bag.