The news coverage about the initial police encounter with Luigi Mangione, who has been charged with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last December, describes the routine practice of police officers when they confront a person whom they reasonably suspect of criminal activity.
A pretrial hearing in presently underway presided by Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro in New York to decide on the admissibility of physical evidence taken from Mangione and statements he made.
The police encounter happened at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, five days after the murder, after a police dispatcher received a 911 call from the McDonald’s manager that customers were concerned about a man in the restaurant who resembled surveillance images of Thompson’s alleged killer. The manager described what Mangione was wearing — a black jacket, a medical mask and a brown beanie. The dispatcher said an officer was on his way.
A video of the police encounter with Mangione shows the Altoona police officers approaching Mangione who is sitting at a table and directing him to lower his mask. “I knew it was him immediately,” a police officer stated.
Mangione at first gave the police a false name. He seemed nervous and his fingers were shaking, according to the police. The police frisked him but found nothing. After backup officers arrived, the police moved Mangione’s backpack aside, testifying that it was heavy and suspected there may be a gun inside.
After Mangione gave the officers his real name they arrested him, gave him his Miranda rights, handcuffed him, and searched him and his backpack. He had thousands of dollars in his wallet. His backpack contained a gun, a notebook, and note to the FBI.
Mangione’s defense is challenging the initial statements Mangione made to the police before receiving his Miranda rights. But this argument is baseless. When the police stop a person reasonably suspected of criminal activity — and there is absolutely no doubt that the police had a reasonable suspicion that the person they confronted might have been the Thompson killer — the police have the right to ask preliminary questions to either confirm or dispel their reasonable suspicion. This practice has been consistently reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court and the New York courts for over 50 years.
Of course, after the arrest, and after the suspect has been taken into custody, the police must give the person the Miranda warnings before questioning him. But I don’t see that this is an issue since Mangione apparently made no incriminating statements following his arrest.
The defense is also attacking the search of Mangione’s backpack. They claim the police needed a warrant to search the backpack. But again, this challenge has no merit. The law of police searches is very clear. After a person has been arrested, the police are allowed to search the individual, including all items he may be carrying on his person such as a wallet, and all items he may be carrying with him, such as a backpack, packages, or other containers he can reach into, without the necessity of obtaining a search warrant.
The theory, which the courts labeled “Search Incident to Arrest,” has two justifications. First, the police are allowed to conduct an immediate search of the person and the items described above to protect their own safety when the person arrested might be capable of reaching into any of these places, grabbing a weapon, and harming the officer. Second, the officers need to protect any evidence from being destroyed or contaminated by the person arrested.
And it would be nonsensical to suggest the police have to delay such a search and wait for a warrant when their own safety and the integrity of evidence may be at risk.
Moreover, as the courts have held, the police don’t have to make a thorough search of the items they have seized at the time of the initial arrest. They can transport the items back to police headquarters where they can conduct a more thorough search.
One other point. If the police are engaged in a lawful search — and there is no doubt the search of the backpack without a warrant was lawful — the police do not have to blind their eyes to evidence that is plainly observable. Thus, a note in the backpack, and even a diary, likely would be allowed to be examined without the need for a warrant. On the other hand, a cell phone or a laptop could definitely be seized but a warrant would be necessary to search these items.
Bennett L. Gershman is a distinguished professor at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
