Executive Summary
- Officer Joseph Detwiler testified that he recognized Luigi Mangione immediately upon the suspect removing his mask at a Pennsylvania restaurant.
- The defense is moving to suppress evidence, including a firearm and personal notebook, arguing the search was conducted without a warrant.
- Prosecutors contend that the search of Mangione’s backpack was justified by exigent circumstances and officer safety concerns.
- Mangione has pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges related to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
A Pennsylvania police officer testified in Manhattan Criminal Court on Tuesday regarding the apprehension of Luigi Mangione, describing the precise moment he identified the suspect in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The testimony was provided during the second day of a pre-trial hearing regarding a defense motion to suppress key evidence.
Officer Joseph Detwiler of the Altoona Police Department told the court that he immediately recognized Mangione at a local McDonald’s as soon as the suspect removed his medical mask. According to Detwiler, the suspect’s face had been widely circulated in news reports following the shooting in New York City five days prior. Detwiler testified that he alerted a supervisor immediately, stating, “It’s him … I’m not kidding,” while noting that Mangione appeared “real nervous” and was not speaking much.
During the encounter, Mangione allegedly provided a false name, home state, and driver’s license. Detwiler noted in his testimony that Mangione’s fingers were shaking while officers patted him down. The officer described his attempts to keep the situation calm while waiting for backup, even whistling along to holiday music playing in the restaurant to normalize the interaction. Court filings indicate that Mangione was eventually arrested at the scene, ending a multi-state manhunt.
Defense attorneys for Mangione are seeking to block prosecutors from presenting certain evidence to jurors at the eventual trial. This evidence includes statements Mangione allegedly made to law enforcement and items seized from his backpack, such as a 9mm handgun and a notebook containing writings about an intent to “wack” a health insurance executive. The defense argues that police failed to obtain a warrant before searching the backpack and that officers began questioning Mangione before reading him his Miranda rights.
Prosecutors maintain that the search was justified under exigent circumstances to ensure officer safety and that Mangione’s initial statements were voluntary and made before he was formally in custody. Federal counterparts have supported this stance in separate filings, arguing that verifying the absence of dangerous items was a necessary safety precaution. The current hearing applies specifically to the state murder case.
Legal Procedural Analysis
This suppression hearing represents a critical juncture in the judicial process, as the admissibility of physical evidence often determines the viability of a prosecution’s case. The court must weigh the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches versus the “exigent circumstances” doctrine, which permits immediate action by law enforcement when safety is at risk. If the judge rules that the search or interrogation violated procedural rights, significant evidence, such as the firearm or the notebook, could be excluded under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” legal doctrine. It is important to note that all individuals, including Mangione, are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
