The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

The Missing Part of the State Court Mangione Suppression Ruling?

The federal court denied a similar motion; the state court grants it in part.

Orin S. Kerr | 5.18.2026 7:41 PM

The state trial court handed down its ruling in People v. Mangione, on whether to suppress part of all of the contents of the backpack Luigi Mangione was carrying at the time of his arrest in the state prosecution against him.  In the federal case against Mangione, the federal court back in January denied the motion to suppress the contents of the backpack. But today the state court suppresses some of the contents for the state court prosecution (in particular, the magazine, cellphone, passport, wallet and computer chip) and allows the government to use other contents (in particular, the red notebook).

I found the new opinion a little odd. There's a part I was expecting that wasn't addressed. I thought I would explain what it is.  [UPDATE: See below for what appears to be the explanation, rooted in New York state constitutional law.]

First, the opinion.  The court begins by concluding that the relevant law is the federal Fourth Amendment and the New York Constitution, even though the actions were those of Pennsylvania police in Pennsylvania. So the heightened restrictions of New York law apply to the Pennsylvania officers, even though they presumably didn't know (and maybe couldn't know) they would be governed by New York state search and seizure law.

Second, the court concludes that New York search and seizure law settles what I have called the "moving property problem": If someone has a backpack, and it is moved away from a person, New York law says it can't be searched incident to arrest because the exigency is gone and the backpack is no longer in the area of the suspect's control.

Third,........

© Reason.com