So, according to the motion filed on the 1st of may, which is what I assume the tweet is referencing, I think there are two things of note.
1st: When cornered at the McDonaldās, the police questioned him about his name and requested his id, then proceeded to ask him a bunch of different questions regarding his identity, the validity of his id, wether he had lied about his name, and any travel to New York. They, at no point at the McDonaldās, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him, even after one officer told the others to read him his rights.
2nd: They moved his backpack to another table before informing him he was under investigation. They did not have a warrant to search his backpack, and given that it was far beyond his reach, and he was handcuffed when they began searching it, there was no reason to suspect anything in it would have been dangerous to the officers on sight. They found a computer chip in the bag while he was still inside, and did not āfindā the loaded gun until he was outside and being driven to the precinct. After āfindingā the gun, the officer searching the bag stated that they were searching it to make sure there āwasnāt a bomb or anything in hereā. The motion Iām referencing suggests that this statement was a hasty attempt to justify the warrantless search post facto.
According to motion filed by the defense on the 1st of may to dismiss multiple items from evidence, including the bag search, the police reported finding the gun during the warrantless search of the bag at the McDonaldās, not just during the second search at the police station.
They, at no point at the McDonaldās, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him
So he wasnāt placed under arrest when they detained him? He wasnāt under arrest at any point while they were at the McDonaldās?
When is the specific point someone is under arrest? My understanding from people asking āam I under arrest or am I free to goā is the suspect is āunder arrestā as soon as they are no longer free to go.
And the goal post has been moved. Weāve gone from āhe wasnāt technically under arrestā to āarrest and these specific questions are acceptableā. Werenāt you just complaining about a faux-legalistic perspective?
I donāt know what questions he was actually asked but donāt see the point in looking it up for the goal post to move again.
Also of note, you mentioned that they can search his bag without a warrant if itās on his person when arrested. They searched his bag at McDonaldās. So he was arrested at the time.
Miranda rights donāt need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
Implying he wasnāt under arrest at any point while he was in the McDonaldās because the complaint was no one read him his Miranda Rights.
You now:
He was arrested when they searched the bag
Okay, so going by your earlier comment that is when he should have been read his Miranda Rights.
Actually, hold up a second here:
He was arrested when they searched the bag. Not when he was being questioned.
So the moment the police do an illegal warrantless search of his bag, that is the exact moment it becomes legal because the definition of under arrest is āwhen police are doing something that would be illegal if you werenāt under arrestā?
That is incredibly fucking convient that heās not āunder arrestā while being questioned (because it would be illegal to question him if he was) but is then immediately āunder arrestā when his belongs are searched (because it would be illegal to search them if he wasnāt).
If what you are saying is true, then that is incredibly fucked up because apparently in the American legal system suspects exist in a super position of āunder arrestā and ānot under arrestā at all times until the police take an action that would be illegal in one of those cases. Then the super position collapses into the one that makes their actions technically not illegal until the police are done with that action, and which point the super position reasserts itself.
So what is the specific action that legally defines when a suspect goes from ānot under arrestā to āunder arrestā? After all, there are specific rights and actions allowed under one but not the other. So how do the suspect and the police know and legally define when that change takes place?
Could is possibly beā¦ The reading of the Maranda Rights?
I am referencing from the motion to dismiss or suppress evidence given by the defense on the 1st of may. If you donāt like how I have stated it, go read it your self and see what theyāre saying on the matter, but they explicitly request that transcripts from the arrest at McDonalds to be dismissed on the grounds that he was not read his Miranda rights.
So, according to the motion filed on the 1st of may, which is what I assume the tweet is referencing, I think there are two things of note.
1st: When cornered at the McDonaldās, the police questioned him about his name and requested his id, then proceeded to ask him a bunch of different questions regarding his identity, the validity of his id, wether he had lied about his name, and any travel to New York. They, at no point at the McDonaldās, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him, even after one officer told the others to read him his rights.
2nd: They moved his backpack to another table before informing him he was under investigation. They did not have a warrant to search his backpack, and given that it was far beyond his reach, and he was handcuffed when they began searching it, there was no reason to suspect anything in it would have been dangerous to the officers on sight. They found a computer chip in the bag while he was still inside, and did not āfindā the loaded gun until he was outside and being driven to the precinct. After āfindingā the gun, the officer searching the bag stated that they were searching it to make sure there āwasnāt a bomb or anything in hereā. The motion Iām referencing suggests that this statement was a hasty attempt to justify the warrantless search post facto.
No one will ever convince me that the weapon they āfoundā wasnāt drenched in Central Park pond water.
Or the trunk of a squad car
Or already in the evidence locker.
deleted by creator
According to motion filed by the defense on the 1st of may to dismiss multiple items from evidence, including the bag search, the police reported finding the gun during the warrantless search of the bag at the McDonaldās, not just during the second search at the police station.
Iāve got a Fox News talking point to recycle from the Boston Marathon bombing:
āThatās great! He doesnāt have those rights so we donāt have to worry about due process!ā
Which isā¦ not how that works.
Miranda rights donāt need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
If it was on his person at the time of his arrest, then they can search it without a warrant.
You donāt have to agree with the prosecution of Mangione but critiquing procedure a faux-legalistic perspective does nobody any good.
So he wasnāt placed under arrest when they detained him? He wasnāt under arrest at any point while they were at the McDonaldās?
When is the specific point someone is under arrest? My understanding from people asking āam I under arrest or am I free to goā is the suspect is āunder arrestā as soon as they are no longer free to go.
Identity, whereād he been, his ID, donāt constitute āinterrogationā for the purpose of Miranda rights.
Thatās more or less true, but he didnāt ask, āAm I under arrest.ā
And the goal post has been moved. Weāve gone from āhe wasnāt technically under arrestā to āarrest and these specific questions are acceptableā. Werenāt you just complaining about a faux-legalistic perspective?
I donāt know what questions he was actually asked but donāt see the point in looking it up for the goal post to move again.
Also of note, you mentioned that they can search his bag without a warrant if itās on his person when arrested. They searched his bag at McDonaldās. So he was arrested at the time.
I didnāt move the goalposts. You even responded to my specific response to what you said.
He was arrested when they searched the bag. Not when he was being questioned.
Your first comment:
Implying he wasnāt under arrest at any point while he was in the McDonaldās because the complaint was no one read him his Miranda Rights.
You now:
Okay, so going by your earlier comment that is when he should have been read his Miranda Rights.
Actually, hold up a second here:
So the moment the police do an illegal warrantless search of his bag, that is the exact moment it becomes legal because the definition of under arrest is āwhen police are doing something that would be illegal if you werenāt under arrestā?
That is incredibly fucking convient that heās not āunder arrestā while being questioned (because it would be illegal to question him if he was) but is then immediately āunder arrestā when his belongs are searched (because it would be illegal to search them if he wasnāt).
If what you are saying is true, then that is incredibly fucked up because apparently in the American legal system suspects exist in a super position of āunder arrestā and ānot under arrestā at all times until the police take an action that would be illegal in one of those cases. Then the super position collapses into the one that makes their actions technically not illegal until the police are done with that action, and which point the super position reasserts itself.
This isnāt difficult.
He wasnāt under arrest from the first moment the police talked to him. That doesnāt mean he wasnāt at any subsequent point put under arrest.
So what is the specific action that legally defines when a suspect goes from ānot under arrestā to āunder arrestā? After all, there are specific rights and actions allowed under one but not the other. So how do the suspect and the police know and legally define when that change takes place?
Could is possibly beā¦ The reading of the Maranda Rights?
I am referencing from the motion to dismiss or suppress evidence given by the defense on the 1st of may. If you donāt like how I have stated it, go read it your self and see what theyāre saying on the matter, but they explicitly request that transcripts from the arrest at McDonalds to be dismissed on the grounds that he was not read his Miranda rights.
The motion isnāt likely to succeed.