There is a mountain of body worn camera evidence that will pretty strongly rule out the possibility that the gun was planted into the backpack.
This is not just speculation. The videos have been admitted into evidence at this hearing. There's video tape of the cop pulling the gun out of the previously unmolested backpack.
I don't know what the law is in Pennsylvania, but some states have a law that you must present ID on request if you have it. Nearly all jurisdictions require you to correctly state your name and address to police on request.
And the police here used a ruse that this was all just a McDonald's loitering complaint. The cop admitted on the stand that the loitering thing was a lie. But that's okay. Remember: the cops are allowed to lie to you, but you are not allowed to lie to the cops.
Remember also: stating the false name orally is a separate crime from the forged instrument.
So bottom line, the failure to Mirandize could suppress the statements where he confessed to the fake ID and to the fake name. But it's not going to toss those charges. And it doesn't suppress the action of handing over the ID, because that's not a statement.
So there's a pretty strong case for the ID charge even without the statements.
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 key dispute is that the State thinks that Mangione wasn't "detained" until after the ID check came back as fake. Mr. Mangione argues that he was "detained" from the very start of the interaction because the police positioned themselves to block his only route of exit.
In between those two times, Mangione made some statements that the defense would like to suppress, but nothing like a full confession or anything.
There may also be an issue that the first Miranda warning that the cop gave in the McDonald's was only the first half of the warning. The right to remain silent part, but not the attorney part. I haven't followed closely enough to know if the defense is arguing that or not.
sounds like he really did it but very well could get off on a technicality
This is a suppression motion for unlawful search and seizure. To call this man's 4th amendment rights a "technicality" is some Law and Order copaganda bullshit.
These suppression motions are already very difficult to win. Mr. Mangione will have to show not only that his rights were violated, but also that the cops would not have found the evidence through a different, legal means. So if he does win, it will not be "on a technicality." It's just the system ensuring that everyone's constitutional rights are respected.
I think GP is alleging that the feds used NSA spy shit to locate Mr. Mangione at the Pennsylvania McDonalds through his burner phone.
But... It is a violation of federal law to spy on an American like that. So the feds have not admitted to that. Instead, they manufactured an anonymous tip, based on legally obtained surveillance video from New York, in order to have a legal reasonable suspicion to question Mr. Mangione.
And then the local cops who responded fucked it up anyway by blocking his path of retreat, which is a functional arrest, and then not Mirandizing. And they also searched the backpack before they had any probable cause to do so, and after they had removed it safely away from Mr. Mangione. Without PC, the cops may search the backpack or Mangione for weapons only (the infamous stop and frisk), but they cannot search the backpack insides if they have removed it away from Mangione. The backpack is no longer a threat at that point
In the laws of war, combatants are considered to be hors de combat (French: [ɔʁ də kɔ̃ba]; lit. 'out of combat'), and thus protected persons, when they are unable to participate in fighting. Hors de combat personnel may not be intentionally targeted. Examples include persons parachuting from their disabled aircraft, shipwreck survivors, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.
Oklahoma has a stricter anti-establishment clause (separating church and state) in its state constitution than the US constitution. This happened because OK wrote its constitution in the 1900s in the midwest.
Having said that the Bible plan was absolutely horrendous. They were going to buy Trump-branded Bibles for $50 a piece, which contained just the public-domain King James text, and the US constitution. Complete grift.
The speech and debate clause is separate from the arrest clause. The Treason exception only applies to the first part.
Additionally, Treason has a definition elsewhere in this document, and just giving any kind of speech doesn't meet the standard.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It would be pretty hard to claim that any kind of speechifying amounts to "Aid and Comfort", especially if you can't identify the "Enemy" in a time when the nation is at peace.
Now the first amendment does apply here, but I expect a legal defense to go to this speech and debate clause first, then 1st amendment. Because 1st amendment has a bunch of exceptions of the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type, but speech and debate is going to be more ironclad. Once you convince a court that you were doing Congressional speech or debate, then the only discipline you can face is from your chamber's rules, period.
Double jeopardy is not a factor in this situation, because the first jeopardy "does not attach" until a jury is seated and sworn in for trial, or when a guilty plea is accepted. The trial by jury is the "jeopardous" part of the criminal justice process. If the case is tossed before that point for any reason, then there is no jeopardy bar to refiling.
If a trial starts, but ends in a mistrial, then it is usually possible to go to another trial, even though jeopardy "has attached". A mistrial ruling effectively "unwinds" the entire trial like it never happened.
or is it like an annulment where it kind of never happened?
This is what Judge Currie said in her opinion. The indictments didn't happen because they were run entirely by a pretend US attorney.
[The Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Beach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
You are correct. The public only receives written transcripts of the relevant sections of tape only. Off-topic conversations, meaning anything that is not relevant to the air accident, are not released. The audio files are not released to the public.
There is a mountain of body worn camera evidence that will pretty strongly rule out the possibility that the gun was planted into the backpack.
This is not just speculation. The videos have been admitted into evidence at this hearing. There's video tape of the cop pulling the gun out of the previously unmolested backpack.