Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ӄɨӄɨ88 :ghost_heart2: (kiki88@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 04:23:31 JST ӄɨӄɨ88 :ghost_heart2:
   Idk how law works
   Someone tell me if this true
   • AlabasterBrick ?‍☠️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 06:57:51 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     • :njp:Robert_Edwardly :windmill_of_friendship: ??
     I don't practice criminal law, do I honestly have no idea. I just read the motion to suppress though, and it is heavy on facts, but thin on law. The only citations regarding the illegal search itself in the Fourth Amendment and the mirroring state provision. Not a single case is cited. That makes me think it's a bit suspect.
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 06:57:52 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • :njp:Robert_Edwardly :windmill_of_friendship: ??
     Could be grounds for an appeal later though.
   • Embed this notice
     :njp:Robert_Edwardly :windmill_of_friendship: ?? (robert_edwardly@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 06:57:53 JST :njp:Robert_Edwardly :windmill_of_friendship: ??

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     @Eiregoat @KiKi88 @Humpleupagus If it's in writing that they found the gun on second search at the police station, my understanding is the attorney has a point.
     
     Doesn't mean shit if the judge has already decided against mangione imo
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 06:57:54 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     @Humpleupagus might know.
     
     It does sound like it could be a broken chain of custody.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 07:10:20 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
     • :njp:Robert_Edwardly :windmill_of_friendship: ??
     I don't know for sure, and maybe criminal courts do things differently, but in a civil motion, comparable cases would be cited to show the court that the facts in this case are like the facts in those cases, and therefore, why the court should find that the law should be similarly applied here.
     
     With my limited knowledge, I'm not convinced it's a chain of custody issue, officers search people and things at the scene every day.
     
     I also don't know if a warrant was necessarily required. Officers perform searches of purses and backpacks every day, and not just because they're looking for evidence of a crime, but also under theories of officer safety. Kinda of an extended Terry frisk.
     
     If he hasn't yet been arrested and they didn't yet have a reason to seize the backpack, and the backpack was near him, that would increase justification to search it.
     
     If on the other hand, they searched after the arrest, they could use the "inventory search" exception — that they were taking inventory of the contents for administrative and liability purposes.
     
     I don't know if a warrant was per se needed here. That's why I think citations are needed, and at least to explain why the common exceptions don't apply.
   • Embed this notice
     :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad: (eiregoat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 02-Mar-2025 07:10:21 JST :spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • :njp:Robert_Edwardly :windmill_of_friendship: ??
     Ok, so in order for it to be granted they'd have to go all the way up and set a precedent?