Luigi Mangione Evidence SUPPRESSED By Judge

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]The judge has ruled in the Luigi Mani case, suppressing several key statements and pieces of evidence. However, statements he later made to correctional officers were allowed in. All right, this is kind of a big update for Luigi.

[00:00:10]This is a tricky case for me to cover because people are very passionate about this because the health care system situation. I don't like it either. I pay $650 a month for healthcare and I never use it. And I have to pay that because if I don't, I will get penalized in the state of California. Kind of crazy. But I'm going to read this full document and watch the court footage. Don't take anything I say too seriously. I'm just covering the basic facts. Love y'all, man. Hit subscribe. Let's go. I'm actually going to read some of this order first before I show the court footage. So, obviously December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare, was shot to death outside the Hilton Hotel Midtown Manhattan.

[00:00:42]December 9th, 5 days later, defendant was arrested in McDonald's in Pennsylvania after he was recognized by employees who had seen media coverage.

[00:00:48]Wasn't that employee fired? Or is that fake news? I don't know. Something happened with this employee or they never got the reward. Wasn't there a reward at some point? A 9mm gun gum is recovered from the defense backpack as well as among other things a loaded magazine, a silencer, cash, a passport, and a notebook. The defendants moved to suppress Evans recovered as well.

[00:01:04]Statements made to law enforcement officers during and after his arrest.

[00:01:07]The police officers that approached him and the McDonald's were Joseph Deweiler and Tyler Fry about 9:30 a.m. Deweiler was a 14-year veteran. I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name right, but whatever. Fry was a rookie officer. When the defendant pulled down his face mask upon Deweiler's request, Deweiler immediately recognized the fend as New York City shooter. That's crazy. You know that officer's heart dropped like, "Oh [ __ ] that might be him." When asked for his name, Luigi said it was Mark Rosario, which is, I believe, the name on the fake ID. He produced a New Jersey driver's license in that name. He went to verify the license and the database.

[00:01:38]He asked the defendant questions about where he's from, whether he' been in New York City recently. He stood him up and frised him, but did not find any weapons or contraband. Brian stood next to the defendant while Dweiler went outside to call the lieutenant, telling him he was about 100% sure that was the New York City shooter. So, he called all these lieutenants and [ __ ] corporals. the whole squad coming now just from this cop saying I'm pretty sure it's him.

[00:01:58]Defendant said that he had not been in New York City recently. Y'all stated that he was homeless. Dweiler told the defendant that they were just trying to confirm his identity and that he would be able to leave. Although Dweiler conceded he had no intention of letting him leave. In response to further question, the defendant said he was from the DMV area. Oh yeah, I forgot this guy's from like Baltimore or something, right? I'm from southern Maryland, so that's crazy. Burns asked Deweiler if the defendant had been frisk and Deweiler responded that he had. About a minute later, McCoy and Luke Eager, also Roger McDonald's, went towards the back where the defendant was. All these, bro, there's like 10 cops there now. That's where it's like, am I free to leave or not? Like, when am I detained? So, at 9:42 a.m., Hanley testified that he considered the defendant was detained at this point. While speaking outside, Deweiler repeated to Hanley that the defendant was 100% the person in New York City. They pulled up the photos on their phones outside. McCoy asked the defendant if the backpack and laptop belonged to him, and he responded that they did. McCoy moved them to the table about 9 ft away from the defendant. the Mark Rosario license. No record was found. Deweiler then said he would be arrested for the fake ID if he gave police a false name. He asked the defendant if his name is actually that to which the defendant responded no sir.

[00:03:00]Deweiler then asked for his actual name and date of birth which was then provided. He also acknowledged having a fake ID. Corporal Trent directed Fox to read defendant Miranda writes and Fox did so and Fox asked the defendant if he's wished to speak. He shook his head and said no I don't think. Fox told the defendant that he was not in custody at this point. Fox intended to ask the defendant why he had a fake ID and the defendant asked that he was going to remain silent. Fox ordered the defendant to stand and frisk him again. Defendant volunteered that he was carrying a jar of peanut butter. When they asked if he had any weapons, he first said, "No, but then he had a pocketk knife." Fox asked why he lied. Defendant replied, "Clearly, I shouldn't have." Asked again why he had done so. He said, "That was ID I had in my wallet. I had a fake ID."

[00:03:35]They took the knife from him. Officers Deweiler, Fry, McCoy searched the defense pockets and clothing recovering the jar of peanut butter, a pouch for the money, some coins, gloves, papers, a hat, and some string. String. As Fox approached the table where the backpack was, he asked the defendant if there was anything in the bag that he needed to know about. Defendant responded that he was just going to remain silent. Waser and Fox then proceeded to search the defense's backpack. As they did so, the employees, customers, continued to walk through the back area to access a closet or bathroom. They unzipped the backpack's main compartment, removed a sandwich as well as a loaf of bread.

[00:04:04]Corporate Trent approached them and said that we should go through that back at the station. WS responded, "I don't know. Just want to make sure there's nothing in there that's going to Fox joked that he would rather have a bomb here than down at the station." Jesus.

[00:04:14]So, they're searching the backpack at the McDonald's. Everything they find at this point is suppressed now. He didn't want to pull a Moser, a reference to an officer who had transported a pipe bomb back to the station. That's embarrassing. That's in a file for everyone to read. Now, they removed a red journal from a pouch and placed on the table. I've seen people say this journal is planted because Luigi is born 6 days after me. I didn't know that. I pretty much have the same birthday as Luigi. What 28-year-old has a journal, keeps it on him, and has a manifesto or whatever, cuz that's so incredibly dumb.

[00:04:40]Same with the gun. Like, what person keeps all this incriminating evidence on them? That's why it's planted. But that's what people say. They recovered a waterproof bag, removed cell phone, a passport, a wallet from inside the bag, retrieved a small cardboard sleeve from the backpack, and spent some time trying to open it with a knife. Cardboard sleeve? What does that look like? He eventually got it open and removed a computer data chip that was inside the cardboard. He handed the passport to Miller and placed the other items in the bag. Trent and Burns inspected the passport. They examined the wallet and took out and looked at the two credit cards before returning them to the wallet. They removed a pair of underwear and unrolled it, revealing a loaded magazine for a handgun. That's suppressed. All of this is suppressed.

[00:05:15]After announcing his discovery to others, Trent stated, "Now that you've cleared it all, let's just go back to the station." So, it feels like Trent knew that they shouldn't have done this.

[00:05:22]He's like, "Yo, we shouldn't search this here. Is that what is going on here?"

[00:05:25]Waler responded that they were just making sure it's not a bomb or anything.

[00:05:28]Fox told Waser, "Now that we found it, the magazine, let's just take it back."

[00:05:32]Hanley testified that he then told Waser and Fox that they should wait until they get back to the station before finishing the search of the backpack because he was concerned about crosscontamination of DNA evidence and also because he did not want a search to occur in public.

[00:05:43]Wster and Fox then placed everything back inside the backpack except a few items which were placed separate McDonald's bag to be taken back to the station. Wster said they had not completely searched the backpack because they wanted to make sure there's no bombs. Trenton said, "At this point, you're probably going to need to do a search warrant for it." Ooh, I feel like Trent knew what was up with it. Like, we shouldn't do this here. Corporal Miller agreed. Sergeant Burns and Fox disagreed, saying they were permitted to do a search and sent to no arrest. Waser carried the bag to her patrol car to transport to the station while Fox carried the McDonald's bag of items to the car. APD general orders to the police station requires an inventory search of a detainee upon arrival APD headquarters and before being placed in a cell. If search reveals a weapon, the inventory search would be moved outside of the intake area and away from the detainee. Every piece of clothing would be searched as well as every bag, jewelry, extra clothing, and other personal items. Now, the search of the police station, they find everything else, but everything before that is suppressed. The USB drive hanging from a necklace, bus tickets, they found the handgun. As she cleared the gun, she discover was loaded. She and swooped then placed in evidence box. At one point, she took the red notebook out of the backpack, examined it, and said, "It's like a journal." I didn't know this. Luigi started speaking to the people around him, the officers. He told Henry that he was a software engineer, that he had been arrested at McDonald's and he had been carrying a backpack and the backpack contained a 3D printed pistol magazine as well as a small amount of foreign currency and that people were accusing him of being a foreign agent. Henry testified the defendant blurted out these comments without any questioning from him. On December 16th, the defendant was being monitored by corrections officer Thomas Rivers. Talked about his travels and place he had seen in Vietnam and Thailand, people appearing to be happier in third world countries despite living in poverty, and also discuss the healthcare system. Oh, brother, not a good look. Why is he speaking to correctional officers? What an idiot.

[00:07:19]Rivers would not recall who initiated the conversations, but oh, Rivers doesn't recall who initiated. Sounds like Rivers did, but Rivers did not give his opinion about private versus public healthare systems. Luigi also asked Rivers how the media was portraying him and stated that he had heard he was being compared to Ted Kazinsky, the uni bomber. He said he wanted to make a statement to the public. He spoke to Rivers about books the next day, discussing his favorite authors and recommended a book by Aldis Huxley. They also discussed the standard of health among Americans compared to Europeans. a lot of healthcare discussions with correctional officers when you know you're a person of interest in the murder of a CEO of a healthcare company.

[00:07:55]Not very smart. So obviously these statements are going to stay in cuz he's in custody at this point and he's just speaking. They're going to say that's like voluntary or whatever. The backpack was not within defense immediate control or gravel area at the time of the arrest or search. Hanley moved the backpack away from the defendant and out of his reach shortly after he arrived while a number of officers stood around the defendant. Hanley considered him detained. A short while later, McCoy moved the backpack to a table about 9 ft away from the defendant while officers continued to surround him. Once defendant was arrested for false ID, he was handcuffed and remained surrounded by several officers. Under these circumstances, the backpack was not in the defense control or grabbable area.

[00:08:27]Indeed, the backpack was within the exclusive control of the police. Even if the backpack could be seen within the defense control or grabable area, the people did not meet their burden of demonstrating exigency. The people served that the police were merely searching for explosives in effort to protect themselves and the public before moving the backpack to the station.

[00:08:43]However, the justification for the searching the backpack does not hold up to the scrutiny. The officer's actions were inconsistent with merely performing a safety search. The area where the police searched the backpack was open to the public and to the employees, both of whom passed by the area on the way to the bathrooms. Yeah. So, they can't say that. Oh, we were searching for bombs, but we were letting people walk by. We did it out in public in the middle of a [ __ ] McDonald's. Like, clearly that's not what they were doing. They were searching that [ __ ] bag and that's why it's suppressed now. A safety search for a possible bomb is inconsistent with this unsafe protocol. Moreover, the police stopped searching the backpack once they found the loaded magazine.

[00:09:12]Officer Fox even stated that now that they had found the magazine, let's just take it back. Similarly, even if it was searched for a bomb, it was an incomplete one as they left compartments unopened and untouched. A search for explosive would be inconsistent examination of small items where bomb would be unlikely to be found such as his wallet and close examination of an opening of the cardboard sleeve. The court is unpersuaded that the people have met their burden of showing exigent circumstances. Judge is [ __ ] on the cops right now. The people also argue that search of the backpack was justified because the officers had a regional belief the back contain operable gun. However, while the body warn camera footage show the officers did express concern at the scene that the backpack might contain a bomb, there's no evidence that a gun was a concern or that it was basis for the search. But even if it was a legitimate concern, there's no possibility at the time that the defendant might retrieve a gun from the backpack and thus no exigency. Therefore, the evidence found during the search of the backpack at the McDonald's must be suppressed, including the magazine, cell phone, passport, wallet, and computer chip. Defendant argues that so once they took the bag back to the station, obviously all this is allowed in now. The initial inventory sufficiently comply with Altuna procedure to be a valid search. Minor deviations from procedure will not invalidate an inventory search. They moved it to a roll call room. All items were meticulously documented. They photographed each item, including loose paper each page of the notebook.

[00:10:22]Defendant argues that the brief examination of the notebook to determine whether it should be true as evidence and Houston and Burns taken picture of the pages were an unlawful extension of an inventory search. This court disagrees, finding that cataloging and photographing of the notebook was a valid part of the inventory search. Nor does the evidence suggest that the purpose of examining the notebook was investigative rather than conducting an inventory. The officers photograph every single page demonstrates that the purpose was to catalog rather than investigate. And Burns was careful to document every page in the notebook. All right, whatever. At this point, they knew that they might have someone that could be the New York shooter. They're taking pictures of everything cuz they're like, "This could be this could be something in here." I don't know if I believe every single time they arrest someone that has a notebook on them, they take a picture of every single page of it. What if it has like 300 pages or something? Defense statements obtained through custodial interrogation and without Miranda warnings must be suppressed. However, any statement given freely and voluntarily, I knew they were going to do this. He shouldn't have been speaking to correctional officers, just speaking to them. That's all admissible.

[00:11:15]The initial interaction, McDonald's, from 929 to 947, he was not in custody.

[00:11:19]Only two or three officers approached or spoke with the defendant. So, at this point, he's saying he he could leave at that point. Dude, if two or three officers are talking to me, I don't feel like I can leave. Honestly, if he would have got up and tried to walk out, you're saying they wouldn't have handcuffed him? That sounds like [ __ ] but whatever. They didn't display their weapons, employ physical restraint, or engage in any conduct that would lead a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to conclude he was not free to leave or under arrest.

[00:11:40]Therefore, any of these statements made during that period will not be suppressed. Once the eight officers arrived, any reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave.

[00:11:46]They circled the defendant, controlled the immediate area. Henry and Rivers, the two correctional officers, are credible witnesses, so he shouldn't have [ __ ] been speaking to them. Henry says he did not ask the defendant any questions or attempt to elicit any information. Officer Rivers and defendant engage in casual conversation on various subjects. Then statements were not made in response to questioning or interrogation. Obviously, some of this is good for the defense and some of it is bad because it means the gun's in there and the notebook's in there. So, it's like a split decision right down the middle. Still, I think the gun and notebook are pretty incriminating, even if some people think it was planted. Uh there's his two lawyers.

[00:12:23]>> He's handcuffed.

[00:12:24]>> Joel Seidman, Zachary Kaplan, and Kristen Bailey. on behalf of the people.

[00:12:28]Good morning, your honor.

[00:12:30]>> Karen Franklin, Mark Agnes, and Jacob Kaplan on behalf of Luigi Manion. Good morning, your honor. Good morning, Miss Burgerer.

[00:12:38]>> All right. Good morning, everyone. So, both parties should have received a copy of the decision this morning, which grants the defendants's motion in part and denies it in part, and which lays out the findings of fact and conclusions of law. So, I'm just going to give a brief summary of the conclusions. So, as to uh the map issues, I find that the search of the backpack at the McDonald's was improper warrantless search, that the backpack was not within the immediate control or grabbable area of the defendant, and further the people failed to demonstrate exiting circumstances. Therefore, those immediate control or grabbable area of the defendant and further the people fail to demonstrate exuded circumstances. Therefore, those items found in the backpack during the search at the McDonald's will be suppressed.

[00:13:37]However, the people have established that the subsequent search of the backpack at the station was a valid inventory search and therefore the items recovered at the station will not be suppressed. That's not good for the defense. That's the gun, the silencer USB drive, and his notebook or journal or whatever that has the manifesto in it, which are very incriminating. I know a lot of people are going to comment he it was planted there. This is such a tricky case to cover because if I say anything that is against the defense, I get completely destroyed in the comments. Like, I'm paid off, dude. It's insane.

[00:14:12]>> So, as to the Huntley issue, I find that the defendant was not in custody until about 9:47 a.m. So, any statements before that will not be suppressed.

[00:14:25]However, the as Miranda warnings were not given until some seconds after 9:48 in the morning, those statements made shortly before that in response to improper custodial um questions that were not merely a request for pedigree information will be suppressed. The judge is saying from about 9:29 a.m.

[00:14:48]when the police first walked up to him to about 9:47, he was not legally in custody yet and there were only a few officers present. The remaining statements uh will not be suppressed as they were either spontaneous or a request for pedigree or safety related questions.

[00:15:07]So those uh statements will be permitted.

[00:15:12]Um so can you guys come up for a second?

[00:15:19]Uh, well, come on up first.

[00:15:21]>> They were just talking about an expert or something and then it cut off. I'm pretty sure his trial starts soon here, so I'll keep covering this. Hit subscribe. Thanks for the support.

[00:15:30]Pizzaos.