S.D.N.Y.: Mangione’s backpack subject to safety search and inventory on his arrest in a McDonald’s

Luigi Mangione’s backpack was properly searched both as a safety search and an inventory yet incident to his arrest at an Altoona, PA McDonald’s. He was the subject of a multistate manhunt for gunning down an insurance executive in broad daylight in NYC when he was spotted and police rushed to the McDonald’s. United States v. Mangione, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18122 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2026):

Such a search was reasonable under the facts of this case. At the time of his arrest in the McDonald’s, the Defendant was suspected of being the person who had gunned down a stranger on a street in midtown Manhattan, using a handgun equipped with a silencer, and leaving behind shell casings that had been inscribed with the words “delay,” “deny,” and “depose” (an apparent reference to the victim’s work as the chief executive of a private health insurance company). Agnifilo Aff. ¶ 4. The circumstances clearly suggested at least the possibility of a political or ideological motive to send a public message, through the use of violence, about the health insurance industry, and little was otherwise known about the perpetrator, including whether he had acted alone or as part of a group, and whether the Thompson murder was an isolated incident or was part of a larger plot contemplating further violence. Police need not have certainty or even probable cause to take steps to protect themselves and the public, so long as their actions and the suspicions that prompt them are reasonable. Under these circumstances, police were justified in conducting a safety search of the Backpack before it was transported. See Ross v. California, 2013 WL 2898066, at *10 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2013) (“Officers were on the lookout for someone matching plaintiff’s description . . . [and] [t]he evidence that plaintiff was possibly involved with other criminal activity, especially involving a concealed weapon, made the search of his backpack reasonable for purposes of officer safety.”). Such a search would also be consistent with the established practices and training of the Altoona Police Department. See Hr’g Tr. at 58:04-19. Here, the Backpack was opened at the McDonald’s before transport and a cursory search was conducted, as the officer can be heard on her body camera stating that she needed to be sure the bag did not contain a “bomb or anything” before she put it in her car. See Opp. Exs. GX 2 at 10:01-10:03, GX 3 at 10:16-10:17. While feeling around inside the bag for items that could be dangerous, the officer almost immediately pulled out a heavy metal item wrapped in an article of clothing, which turned out to be a loaded handgun magazine. See Opp. Ex. GX 2 at 10:01.10Link to the text of the note In sum, the loaded magazine is admissible as the product of a reasonable pre-transport safety search.

Inventory searches—meaning searches conducted of property in the custody of the police in order to identify and log anything the police are responsible for storing or safeguarding—are another “well-defined exception to the warrant requirement.” Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643,648 (1983) (“it is not unreasonable for police, as part of the routine procedure incident to incarcerating an arrested person, to search any container or article in his possession, in accordance with established inventory procedures”). Inventory searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment because their goals are unrelated to the warrant requirement or the necessity of probable cause; rather, they “serve to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger.” United States v. Mendez, 315 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44, 53-54 (2d Cir. 2019). To be valid, inventory searches must be conducted using “standardized criteria or established routine,” Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990). A police department’s standardized procedures may be established by written rules and regulations or by testimony regarding the department’s standard practices. See United States v. Thompson, 29 F.3d 62, 65-66 (2d Cir. 1994); Williams, 930 F.3d at 54.

Here, Deputy Chief Snyder’s testimony and the exhibits offered at the suppression hearing amply establish that the Altoona Police Department has written procedures and rules regarding the searching and inventorying of any property brought into the police station, and that officers are trained in these standard practices. …