and why would he have given ID to the pigs?

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. They took the whole backpack back to the police station.

5. 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.

6. 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.

We’ve also seen some of this:

1. Arrest target on low level misdemeanor.

2. Go to court, set bail.

3. Target posts bail.

4. ICE arrests target right outside the jailhouse gate.

5. …

6. Bond revoked for failure to appear.

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

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.