CREATORS: Mangione Ruling Spurs Re-Examination of Exclusionary Rule

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
May 19, 2026

Why would material evidence in the possession of a murder suspect be inadmissible at trial?

Simple — the exclusionary rule. The recent decision by Judge Gregory Carro of the New York Supreme Court in the Luigi Mangione prosecution has spurred interest in what the exclusionary rule does and if it is still needed.

The rule was first established in federal court in 1914. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal law enforcement officers could not use evidence obtained in violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights in federal criminal trials. Prior to 1914, law enforcement officers, although compelled by the U.S. Constitution not to violate an accused's rights, could nonetheless violate those rights with impunity.

The state version of the rule didn't come about for another 47 years. I wrote about the exclusionary rule for Creators in 2025, and it is worth reexamining. In 1957, Cleveland, Ohio, police officers went to the home of Dollree Mapp looking for a suspect in a criminal investigation. She refused to let the police in without a warrant.

The police left, and when they returned, they were armed with a "fake" warrant. Chicanery took the place of real police work. Instead of going to a judge to get a warrant, the police drew up their own. After entering Mapp's home, police conducted a search and confiscated obscene material, resulting in Mapp's arrest.

As a result of the police misconduct, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a remedy — the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from admission in a criminal prosecution — resulting in a dismissal of the charges.

Many Supreme Court observers suggested that the Mapp decision would be detrimental to law enforcement. The courts would be inundated with challenges and the guilty would go free in droves. That never happened.

What the exclusionary rule accomplished was a higher standard of police training and, in turn, police work. Ironically, the late Justice Antonin Scalia cited "increasing professionalism of police" as a reason for the exclusionary rule's obsolescence.

Scalia's argument didn't make sense then and doesn't make sense today. Without the exclusionary rule, an individual's constitutional rights would be ignored. Law enforcement training would turn on a dime.

For now, the exclusionary rule is still around. Mangione's case is illustrative of why it is still needed. There was a nationwide manhunt for Mangione after the brazen assassination of insurance executive Brian Thompson on a New York City sidewalk. Mangione was recognized by a McDonald's Restaurant employee in Altoona, Pa.

The police were called and Mangione was detained after they arrived. Mangione had a backpack that was moved to a table approximately nine feet away. He was patted down for officer safety, both of which are appropriate under the Fourth Amendment.

However, the police went further and searched his backpack without obtaining a search warrant. They said they needed to make sure there was not a bomb in the bag. Prosecutors argued that the circumstances created an exception to the rule requiring a warrant. The court didn't buy it. Judge Carro ruled that the search of Mangione's bag at McDonald's violated his constitutional rights.

As a result, by way of the exclusionary rule, evidence including a gun magazine, a cellphone, a passport, a wallet and a computer chip, all found in the backpack, is not admissible at trial.

However, a second search of the bag at the police station revealed a gun linked to the crime and Mangione's manifesto attacking the insurance industry. The second search of the same bag without a search warrant is constitutionally permissible. The police may conduct a warrantless inventory search to record the suspect's belongings. As a result, the gun and manifesto are admissible at trial.

The exclusionary rule promotes integrity in the criminal justice system — even strong evidence of guilt, in a high-profile killing, cannot be used if police violate the Constitution to get that evidence.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

No-Knock Raid: Castle Doctrine or Murder? Texas jury provide an answer

A jury in Texas convicted a man of murdering a local police officer in a case that pitted no-knock raids against the right to self-defense, reported Reason Magazine.

Marvin Guy, who waited in jail for over nine years before his trial, was found guilty of murdering Detective Charles Dinwiddie, whom Guy said he mistook for an intruder after a SWAT team in 2014 smashed his bedroom window and tried to break into his home with a battering ram during a 5:45 a.m. drug raid. The panel declined, however, to convict him of capital murder and instead opted for murder, meaning they did not agree—at least not unanimously—that Guy knew he was shooting at law enforcement.

The raid was the product of a no-knock warrant, which police pursued in response to a tip that Guy had been dealing cocaine, and which allowed them to break into Guy's apartment without first identifying themselves.

On May 9, 2014, before the sun rose, about two dozen officers arrived at Guy's residence. The team struggled to fully penetrate the door with their battering ram; something was blocking it from behind. One officer accidentally detonated his stun grenade, inflaming what was already a raid rapidly going awry.

Guy, who lived in a high-crime area, said he was woken up and assumed the police were criminals trying to break into his home. He had allegedly been on edge about such a situation: One of his neighbors had reportedly been victimized similarly a week before when an intruder choked her after forcing entry by way of her first-floor window. Guy allegedly hit four officers, killing Dinwiddie and prompting police to fire over 40 rounds in return.

The prosecution, however, theorized that Guy had somehow come to know the police were coming and that he'd set a trap to "ambush" them. "One man's ambush is another man panicked, being scared his home is being broken into," countered Jon Evans, Guy's defense attorney.

Key to the defense's case were the frenzied circumstances characteristic of many no-knock raids—namely that it was set in motion without warning and before dawn, when the target is likely to be disoriented. A witness for the government testified the first day that during such raids it was department policy to shine a light into the home so police could see in but the subject couldn't see out.

The prosecution concluded their case on Thursday with testimony from Dinwiddie's widow, Holly, in what was effectively a victim impact statement. "He had a zest for life," she said. "He woke up happy." The defense rested the same day after calling one witness: retired Killeen Police Department Commander Scott Meads, who conducted an administrative review of the raid and identified several tactical errors and concerns, including that the officers were confused over the apartment's layout.

Texas has the Castle Doctrine, the legal principle that entitles someone to stand their ground in their home if they perceive a deadly threat. That protection evaporates, however, if the person is engaged in illegal activity. Law enforcement allegedly found traces of white powder on Guy's apartment floor, in his car, and in the trash, though the government did not charge him with a drug crime.

To read more CLICK HERE

Murder of a police officer or stand your ground

Nine years after the shooting death of Killeen police detective Chuck Dinwiddie, the man accused of his murder is finally set to begin trial on Oct. 30, 2023. according to KCEN-TV in Texas. The trial pits capital murder against the stand your ground doctrine.

Marvin Guy is charged with Capital Murder for the death of Dinwiddie on May 9, 2014. Guy is accused of shooting Dinwiddie when police conducted a no-knock raid at his home.

Guy has been in county jail for nine years. During this time, he has been represented by 11 different attorneys, causing multiple delays for the trial. 

Most recently on April 12, 2023, a judge granted a motion from yet another defense team to withdraw from Guy's counsel.

Today, a motion by the prosecution to request a visiting judge was denied and Guy is now set to begin trial at the end of October. 

To read more CLICK HERE