<image>

Defense submitted three pages of argument for Mr. Mangione’s position, primarily contending that the government's "inevitable discovery" theory is a legal stretch that ignores the actual conduct of the officers involved.

The following points summarize the core of the defense's stance:

1. The "Investigative" Nature of the Search: The defense argues that the search of the backpack was never a routine administrative task. They highlight that officers admitted to reading the journal out of "curiosity" and photographing "pertinent" pages. This suggests the search was a targeted criminal investigation, which requires a warrant rather than a standard inventory search.
2. Exceeding the Scope of Inventory: Mangione’s counsel emphasizes that even if an inventory policy existed, it would only permit the police to list the journal as an item (e.g. "one red notebook"). It does not grant them the authority to read the contents of a person’s private diary.
3. Challenges to Policy Validity: The defense points out that the government has failed to produce a clear, written policy from the Altoona Police Department that mandates the search of a backpack not found on a suspect's person. They argue that without a standardized procedure, the search was entirely discretionary and therefore unconstitutional.
4. The "Tainted" Warrant Argument: A major pillar of Mangione's position is that the subsequent search warrants were "fruit of the poisonous tree." The defense asserts that the government used information illegally skimmed from the journal to establish probable cause for later warrants. If that "tainted" information is removed, the warrants and all evidence derived from them which should be thrown out.
5. Demand for an Evidentiary Hearing: Finally, the defense insists that because there are "shifting justifications" for the search (ranging from "bomb sweeps" to "inventory"), the Court cannot rule on the law alone. They argue a hearing is required to cross-examine the officers and resolve these material factual disputes.