Luigi mion's defense attorney argues his rights were violated the police conducted an illegal search and seizure out in Pennsylvania that evidence should be suppressed does he have a point does he have a valid legal argument how could this affect manon's various criminal cases we're going to bring on a former Pennsylvania prosecutor to discuss it all welcome to sidebar presented by law on crime I'm Jesse Weber Luigi mang's attorney had has just made a big accusation and if true if they can prove this this could potentially really affect his prosecution and it all stems around when
manjun he was arrested in Altuna Pennsylvania we remember how this all went down right he was apprehended in a McDonalds after a customer thought he looked a lot like the suspect in the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson who was gunned down on the streets of New York City just a few days earlier as he was on his way to an investor conference that customer apparently alerted an employee who then alerted police and at that point in time remember images of the suspected shooter were publicized Across the Nation we remember shortly after the killing
the NYPD released surveillance images of a man believed to be the shooter they released images that were captured inside a Starbucks person wearing a face mask obscuring his face this person was also captured without his mask on smiling and surveillance from the hosle he was reportedly staying at there were other images from outside the crime scene Alle ly showing the man carrying a concealed firearm acting suspiciously and then you have another image from the suspect that was captured from inside a taxi cab where he can once again be seen wearing that mask over his face
and when officers detained him what did they find when they detained him out in Altuna Pennsylvania I'm going to read you what it says from manon's federal complaint in New York quote members of the Altuna Police Department responded and encountered Manon who they also believed match the appearance of the shooter when approached by responding officers and asked for identification mangion offered the false New Jersey ID used by the shooter to check into the hostel mangion was later found to be in possession of a loaded 9mm pistol and silencer consistent with the weapon used to kill
the victim clothing that matched apparel that the shooter wore in the security camera videos a notebook several thousand do in cash an envelope associated with an FDIC insured bank with a letter addressed to the feds The Notebook contains several handwritten pages that expressed hostility towards the health insurance industry and Wealthy Executives in particular goes on to say The Notebook described how the details are finally coming together and quote I'm glad in a way that I've procrastinated because it allowed me to learn more about the and then it's an acronym for company one and the notebook
entry also stated that quote the target is Insurance because quote it checks every box and as far as the feds letter recovered from mangion it stated I wasn't working with anyone this was fairly trivial some Elementary social engineering basic CAD a lot of patience so in the end mangion was criminally charged in three separate cases after he was extradited back to New York so in New York State Court he was indicted on charges of first and second degree murder possession of a forged instrument and multiple charges of criminal possession of a weapon and particularly for
the first degree murder charge he could face life in prison then he was charged with federal crimes in New York although he's not have been indicted uh we're talking murder through use of a firearm two counts of stalking the murder charge carries the potential of the death penalty and out in Pennsylvania he faces State charges of forgery carrying a firearm without a license tampering with identification possessing instruments of a crime and providing false identification to law enforcement authorities so it is Pennsylvania that we want to talk about why because his Pennsylvania attorney Thomas Dicky has
argued in a new court filing that any evidence that was seized was obtained illegally and unlawfully and manon's constitutional rights were violated and in fact his New York attorney seemingly said the same thing during a recent hearing Karen fredman nifo argued that mion's quotes constitutional rights were violated and said I think there's a very very serious search issue in this matter and there might be evidence that is suppressed meaning it won't come into trial by the way our plan is to keep uncovering these Luigi man only updates for you as they happen and for that
I got to call out today's sponsor that helped make this episode possible Sally now if you don't know what it is Sally is an incredible eim Service app so I recently went on vacation to Italy and Sally is something I could download on my phone because I used so much data while I was away while everybody else was dealing with roaming fees and having issues with their cell data you can use S as a Hotpot to easily plan your activities and with the s app getting an eim really couldn't be simpler because you just buy
a plan on the S app you activate it once it's activated you're good to go you can use the internet wherever you go and also once the S eim is installed there's no need to install a new one for each country the same eim can use plans that are available in over 190 countries so go to s.com sidebar click the link in the description or pinned in the comments to get an exclusive 15% discount on s data plans be sure to use our code sidebar checkout that s.com sidebar promo code sidebar so to talk about
this Pennsylvania situation and to go through this filing as it relates to Luigi mangion let me bring on criminal defense attorney and former Pennsylvania prosecutor Matthew mangino now I promise we didn't book Matthew because of the names Matthew mangino talking about Luigi mangion but I don't know add a bonus but thanks so much for coming on Matthew it's so good to see you yeah thanks for having me so first question for you before we even get into the specific details generally speaking if we are talking big picture if a criminal defendant is success uccessful in
saying in arguing that his initial search and seizure rights were violated in one state and it is connected to the prosecution of him in another state so you're talking about evidence that was collected That Was Then used in a different case does that mean that the charges in the other state fall apart in other words if dicki is successful here could it affect mang's prosecution in New York on a state or federal level I don't think Jesse that it would directly affect it now certainly if he makes a a successful argument in Pennsylvania obviously he
has some some U reasons for being successful he has some case law that supports uh what his position is but it doesn't automatically suppress those matters in uh State Court in New York or in federal court uh in New York so so you know it's kind of a test run in Pennsylvania whether or not he can make a successful argument with regard to suppression let me ask you this if he has a successful argument can his New York attorney can Karen Freeman nifo piggyback that make the S same argument same filing uh in New York
and be successful there well yeah I mean they they could make the same argument but but there would be the possibility that he he could be successful in Pennsylvania but not successful in New York now when you look at these search and seizure issues you not only look at the the Federal Constitution you also look at the State Constitution and in Pennsylvania you know uh Article 1 Section 8 which deals with uh issues of search and seizure uh is is a little tighter than the Federal Constitution and maybe the New York Constitution so you could
be successful in an argument say under the Pennsylvania Constitution that this was an illegal search but not be successful federally or uh in the state court in New York that's a good Point that's a good point um also before we get into the details um his attorney filed a RIT of habius Corpus where he outlines how manon's rights were allegedly violated so talk to us about what is this what is the rid of KBS Corpus here and what is he asking the court to do well what he's asking a rid of habius Corpus uh is
is an issue you know Latin phrase you know release the body you want him released because there was they're alleging an illegal arrest uh that his his constitutional rights were violated now in Pennsylvania what we normally refer to this is an Omnibus pre-trial motion which means every issue that could be raised pre-trial you raise it in this motion and then ultimately you have a hearing in front of a judge evidence is presented yeah your your legal arguments are presented and a and a determination is made under what we call the exclusionary rule whether or not
this evidence should be suppressed because his constitutional rights were violated I think this sets the stage perfectly Matt and I'm actually going to go piece by piece with this and we're going to break it down so I want to get into the filing and the way it starts off is it goes over the circumstances by which Manion was arrested in Altuna Pennsylvania at that McDonald's on December 9th 2024 and this is part of the motion to dis suppress evidence more specifically and it explains how mangion was approached by two uni formed armed officers they had
Badges and how one of the officers positioned himself to mang's right essentially blocking him in that he couldn't go anywhere and even at one point suggesting that it was quote a human law enforcement wall when apparently another officer joined him on the side or as the filing reads this action taken in order to detain and or totally curtail the liberty of the defendant and to restrict the defendant's path of travel or Ingress or egress from the table where he was sitting these actions were performed to clearly exhibit said officers authority over defendant and from there
the filing continues no explanation was given to the defendant relative to why the police approached him at McDonald's at most police indicated that he quote looked suspicious and had overstay his welcome as Patron at McDonald's it is clear that Altuna police provides a specious and unreasonable reason for approaching defendant it must be assumed that defendant was being detained for an investigation to which he was not informed the filing continues at no time did the two officers indicate that defendant was free to go nor did they explain the reasons as to why defendant was being detained
Matt let's start right there what are the issues here potential issues here and explain the legal significance well Jesse I I don't want to get too far into the weeds with with the the uh legal aspect but but I'll tell you initially with when they came there they had what's called Reasonable Suspicion so they had a a call that that somebody uh you know who looked like uh an individual who's wanted for homicide uh was in the McDonald's so so so that that provides them what's called Reasonable Suspicion and with Reasonable Suspicion you can go
up to somebody and you can ask them questions and you can even Pat them down to make sure they're not armed you know it's not a dangerous situation with the argument is that they're trying to make is because of the police officers and this indicia of power you know they got the badge and the gun and and three of them come in and it's a wall of police officers that he wasn't free to leave and once you're not free to leave and you're being detained by the police it becomes what's called a a custodial interrogation
okay so if you ask questions and this person doesn't feel as though they are free to leave then you need to mirandize that person uh because they need to know at that point that they're not free to leave uh that they have certain rights to an attorney uh to remain silent and if you don't do those things once you get into that custodial situation then any statement is subject to suppression because it's it's made without being mirandized without being told what your constitutional rights are so so you can tell by uh the way they characterize
the situation that they're trying to create that issue of custodial interrogation and therefore a violation of his rights by not mirandizing him this is their Narrative of course about what happened but did police I mean if they're approaching him and let's say they are blocking his right is are they necessarily blocking him in where he would you know expect that he couldn't leave H how should they have approached it going into a McDonald's like this well yes and and again as I said they have a legal basis to be there they have Reasonable Suspicion based
on what they know from someone who's called the police all right now you know it's tough to to to make that argument that you're in custody and you're not free to leave in an in an area like that so certainly if they grab him put him in a police car he's not free to leave right okay if they bring him to the police station he's not free to leave now you at this point you're trying to figure out uh you know you know subjectively you know what this individual how he felt how Luigi mangion felt
did he feel that he wasn't free to leave uh you know because of the police officers you know blocking him in or creating a wall that's a little tougher okay you know it's a lot different when the police come in they put handcuffs on you and they start asking you questions at that point there's a clear line yeah you're not free to leave here it's not as clear Le let's go through it a little bit more and I'll explain what what their their narrative about what happens next is so the filing continues upon approaching the
defendant officer Detweiler immediately made commands and instructions to the defendant including but not limited to providing his identification standing up placing hands up over his head defendant Avers that the totality of these circumstances clear show that he was seized and unlawfully detained at this time and was in custody of the Altuna police department and that this was in violation of the fourth and 14th amendments why those amendments explain to us why this would uh connect here Matt well the fourth amendment is an illegal search or illegal seizure so it could be the seizure is the
idea of an arrest an illegal arrest the 14th Amendment is is the amendment that applies the Bill of Rights to individual states so you know originally when the Bill of Rights were created were it was only for federal prosecutions and it wasn't until the 14th Amendment uh that uh those rights that are in identified in the Bill of Rights became applicable to States so you know prior to the 14th Amendment uh you only had your state constitution to rely on in terms of illegal searches and seizures now you have your state Constitution and the Federal
Constitution applies to State prosecutions okay makes sense um all right so it continues it says quote both police officers from the Altuna Police Department continued to interrogate and question the defendant without any reading of his Miranda rights as required by both the Constitution of the United States as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution what Matt was talking about before officer Deb Wier further directed and commanded the defendant to stand up in order to undergo a Terry Frisk a pat down although no circumstances existed at that time justifying said action Matt jumping in here your thoughts on
this again are you sensing the officers doing anything wrong no and that's exactly what I spoke about earlier you know under Terry versus Ohio uh you if you have Reasonable Suspicion which I mentioned earlier and reasonable suspicion it was a judicially created uh term you know you know in the past you either had probable cause you could arrest somebody or you were acting on some sort of hunch and the Supreme Court created this Middle Ground called Reasonable Suspicion so they get a call this guy might be uh the suspect in in a in a high-profile
homicide they can come there they can briefly detain him they can ask him questions they can ask for his ID and they can Frisk him for a weapon for off officer safety that's all it's about hey we got this guy we're we're we're we're suspicious of him I'm going to check and see if he has a weapon so it's not a danger to us as we know you know that that evolved into stop and frisk which is was a a controversial issue in in New York and other places uh where they use Terry stops to
try to find guns here it's perfectly proper and constitutional to do exactly what they did to that point you mention the ID let's go there right so from there the filing describes how police allegedly took mang's ID and the filing reads it is clear that the Altuna police officer used the identification material and other information obtained via their interrogation for use as a background check in other investigative measures the Altuna Police Department continued to interrogate the defendant Now Matt in other words is it if they didn't have the right to obtain this then whatever they
learned about mangion is Tainted so in other words if they didn't have the right to take his ID or anything about this was wrong then if they learned something about mangion or they gathered evidence during the course of their investigation or used it as a background check it's like fruit of the poisonous tree am I understanding that argument right you're you're exactly right um Jesse so so once you know you know what we've talked about to this point seems proper but once they cross that line uh and I'm saying that they did here but but
once you cross that line where now you're extending this detention further than than it should be without probable cause okay then anything that you find on him as a result of that legal search uh becomes as you said fruit of the poisonous tree and under the exclusionary rule uh all that evidence cannot be used against the defendant in the case in Pennsylvania so from there the filing goes on to describe how more members of the Altuna Police Department show up they allegedly block Manion from leaving the man the filing reads in order for the defendant
to exit the dining table to venture to the service area of the McDonald's he would have had to pass no less than approximately 7 to 10 members of the Altuna police department and or other law enforcement personnel and how Manion believed he wasn't free to go the filing adds that an agent from the PA the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office was also present there and the filing continu that during this period of what mangion or dicki describes as being in custody quote various members of the Altuna Police Department continued to interrogate the defendant with the intentions
of obtaining incriminating statements from the defendant the totality of the circumstances presented by the Altuna Police Department again make it clear that the defendant was in custody and that the actions by the Altuna Police Department constituted a custodial interrogation of the defendant and then it goes on to say for about 15 minutes mangion still hadn't been given information as to why he was being held and he believed he wouldn't be able to leave while the inquiry was being conducted and here's what happened next according to the fining finally after approximately 15 minutes of the defendants
unlawful detention seizure and continued custody he was advised by officer deweer that he was officially under a police investigation he was not read his Miranda rights at that time defendant was then asked who he was at which time defendant replied that he was Luigi mangion he was further interrogated by members of the Altuna Police Department after approximately two more minutes of interrogation a member of the Altuna Police Department read the defendant his Miranda rights at the conclusion of the reading of said Miranda rights the defendant was asked if he wished to speak to police at
which time the defendant shook his head no officer Fox immediately stated to the defendant that you are not in custody however Dicky continues that this statement was materially false inaccurate and contrary to law it is clear at this time the defendant was in fact in custody and had been in fact in custody since his illegal and unlawful seizure Detention curtailment of Liberty and how all this was in violation of his constitutional rights Matt are they right if this is true if this actually happened the way they said is this a problem well I think you
have to look at it uh in in a way that that um you know helps understand the circumstances so we talked about Reasonable Suspicion and they had Reasonable Suspicion when they when they got there the question is when did they determine that they had probable cause to arrest him to detain him okay so once you have established probable cause then you you you have the ability to keep somebody in in custody um the the question would be this interrogation did he answer questions um you know it's one thing to ask questions it's another thing if
if somebody ansers those questions and and it's a third thing were those questions and answers against his interest so so you you you know it's not enough to say oh you didn't read him his rights well if he didn't say anything it doesn't matter because because the only issue is you know did you say something incriminating when you should have been told they say this search and seizure was illegal um based on what you've seen and there's also you know an allegation that they've removed duct tape with a knife could all that evidence be suppressed
well it's possible if if a court looks at this and says that you know he was in custody and he made incriminating statements or you know his bag it's one thing to search somebody's body it's a different thing to search a bag and so so those you know those issues are rip for review by by a court and and certainly should be raised you know will they be successful I I don't know all right we'll wait and see Matt manino thank you so much for coming on appreciate your perspective as always sir thank you Jesse
all right everybody that's all we have for you right now here on sidebar thank you so much for joining us and as always please subscribe on YouTube Apple podcast Spotify wherever you should get your podcast I'm Jesse Weber I'll speak to you next time [Music]
