I am referencing from the motion to dismiss or suppress evidence given by the defense on the 1st of may. If you don’t like how I have stated it, go read it your self and see what they’re 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.
They, at no point at the McDonald’s, ever read him his Miranda rights, even after informing him that he was under investigation and detaining him
So he wasn’t placed under arrest when they detained him? He wasn’t under arrest at any point while they were at the McDonald’s?
When is the specific point someone is under arrest? My understanding from people asking “am I under arrest or am I free to go” is the suspect is ‘under arrest’ as soon as they are no longer free to go.
And the goal post has been moved. We’ve gone from “he wasn’t technically under arrest” to “arrest and these specific questions are acceptable”. Weren’t you just complaining about a faux-legalistic perspective?
I don’t know what questions he was actually asked but don’t 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 it’s on his person when arrested. They searched his bag at McDonald’s. So he was arrested at the time.
Miranda rights don’t need to be read until the person in question is under arrest.
Implying he wasn’t under arrest at any point while he was in the McDonald’s 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 “when police are doing something that would be illegal if you weren’t under arrest”?
That is incredibly fucking convient that he’s not “under arrest” while being questioned (because it would be illegal to question him if he was) but is then immediately “under arrest” when his belongs are searched (because it would be illegal to search them if he wasn’t).
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 “under arrest” and “not under arrest” 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 “not under arrest” to “under arrest”? 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 be… The reading of the Maranda Rights?
Miranda rights don’t 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 don’t have to agree with the prosecution of Mangione but critiquing procedure a faux-legalistic perspective does nobody any good.
I am referencing from the motion to dismiss or suppress evidence given by the defense on the 1st of may. If you don’t like how I have stated it, go read it your self and see what they’re 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 isn’t likely to succeed.
So he wasn’t placed under arrest when they detained him? He wasn’t under arrest at any point while they were at the McDonald’s?
When is the specific point someone is under arrest? My understanding from people asking “am I under arrest or am I free to go” is the suspect is ‘under arrest’ as soon as they are no longer free to go.
Identity, where’d he been, his ID, don’t constitute “interrogation” for the purpose of Miranda rights.
That’s more or less true, but he didn’t ask, “Am I under arrest.”
And the goal post has been moved. We’ve gone from “he wasn’t technically under arrest” to “arrest and these specific questions are acceptable”. Weren’t you just complaining about a faux-legalistic perspective?
I don’t know what questions he was actually asked but don’t 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 it’s on his person when arrested. They searched his bag at McDonald’s. So he was arrested at the time.
I didn’t 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 wasn’t under arrest at any point while he was in the McDonald’s 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 “when police are doing something that would be illegal if you weren’t under arrest”?
That is incredibly fucking convient that he’s not “under arrest” while being questioned (because it would be illegal to question him if he was) but is then immediately “under arrest” when his belongs are searched (because it would be illegal to search them if he wasn’t).
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 “under arrest” and “not under arrest” 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 isn’t difficult.
He wasn’t under arrest from the first moment the police talked to him. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t at any subsequent point put under arrest.
So what is the specific action that legally defines when a suspect goes from “not under arrest” to “under arrest”? 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 be… The reading of the Maranda Rights?
No. Because the police don’t have to Mirandize someone when they arrest them.