Prominent legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has expressed concerns over a specific aspect of the arrest procedure in the case of a suspect apprehended in connection with the murder of UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson.
Luigi Mangione, the individual in question, was taken into custody on Monday in Altoona, Pennsylvania, following an extensive manhunt. He is a person of interest in the fatal shooting of Thompson that occurred on December 4.
According to the Daily Caller, Dershowitz, a former Harvard law school professor, voiced his apprehension about the possibility of Mangione's rights being violated during the post-arrest search. This, he warned, could potentially jeopardize a conviction in the murder case. Dershowitz was quoted as saying, Im a little nervous about one aspect of the arrest. According to newspaper reports when they arrested him, they found in his possession a series of documents relating to insurance companies. I dont think that was based on a constitutional search.
Dershowitz, a staunch defender of constitutional rights, expressed his desire for the suspect to face justice if guilty, but insisted on the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures. He stated, Get mad at me, but I believe in the Constitution. Look, I want this guy to be convicted if he did it, and obviously, it seems 99.999999% certain that he did it, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, but I insist every I be dotted, every T be crossed when it comes to the Constitution.
The renowned attorney further clarified the legal boundaries of a post-arrest search. He explained, Now the rules are this: When you arrest somebody, you can conduct a search that is consistent with the arrest and you can make sure he has no guns, you can make sure he has no knives, no weapons, nothing like that, no means of escape, thats all legitimate. But if you find in his pocket, you know a series of documents, there are cases, its not clear, that suggest before you read the documents, lets assume they were enclosed in an envelope, or they werent, there was more than one page, before you go inside the document, you may very well need a search warrant.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, may be relevant in this case. As per Findlaw, failure to secure a search warrant, barring certain exceptions, could lead to a judge excluding evidence obtained in the search.
Dershowitz emphasized the importance of the police obtaining a search warrant, especially in such a high-profile case. He said, It would have been easily obtainable, and you know, maybe no harm no foul, but the police should have obtained a search warrant. Maybe they did But particularly when you have a case thats so obvious and so apparent, police should do everything in their power to avoid giving the defense any arguments at all, the same thing happened in the O.J. Simpson case, they so clearly climbed over the fence, made up a story that they were there to protect him.
In his final remarks, Dershowitz expressed his hope that no procedural missteps would endanger a potential conviction in this case, stating, I dont want to see anything endangering a potential conviction in this case. His comments underscore the delicate balance between ensuring justice and upholding constitutional rights, a balance that is crucial in maintaining public trust in the legal system.
Login