A Warrantless Search: Inside the Courtroom for Luigi's Federal Suppression Hearing

Please note: this is not supposed to be an exhaustive account of court proceedings or a legal overview. It is, rather, my own personal experience as a witness to court proceedings.

The morning of the 23rd was brisk when I woke up. It was six in the morning and still dark as night. I skipped out on breakfast that morning; I felt uncharacteristically nervous about the hearing and hadn’t slept well at all. I must have fallen asleep for an hour or two, because I remember having a dream that I forgot my press pass and only discovered that I had misplaced it once at the courthouse. Coffee would help with the fatigue, but not with the nausea from being anxious. So, after taking extra care to pack my press pass with me, I opted to drive to the city on an empty stomach.

Arriving at 40 Foley Square, I could immediately see the line of public spectators gathered within the barricades. One of my friends from the line ran up to me to catch me up on what the night had been like. They told me that they had arrived the night before and had to brave not only the cold, but also some drama. It’s to be expected to a certain extent. Everyone cares so much about this case and mixed with lack of sleep and the cold, tensions are bound to arise. But in such harsh conditions, I worried about everyone’s health first and foremost: their noses were red and I could see them shifting so as to keep as warm as possible.

Federal grounds do not allow for tents to be pitched for overnight camping, like the state courthouse grounds do allow for. The night had been especially nippy, with high wind chills. Due to these constraints, I believe there were only around 15 members of the public when I arrived that morning, with sufficient room for more to attend had they shown up around 7:30 am. I wondered why there had to be any back and forth about the line at all when there seemed to be plenty of room and more collaboration between those who were braving the cold day after day to provide palpable support inside the courtroom. Though I no longer had to brave the public line nor was I involved in organizing it in any capacity anymore, I still felt proud of their displays of strength and solidarity (despite some quarreling.) It’s always so nice to see the same familiar faces and chat with everyone in the halls, too.

We were finally let in a few hours later and went through the grueling check-in process. It is akin to TSA, except they make you check in all your electronics and pick them up at the end. I always ring incessantly when I go through the X-ray scanner. This time, the female court officer asked me to remove all of my jewelry. Some of my rings have been on me forever–not out of choice, but because I’ve had them on for a decade straight and my knuckles have fused them into place. I couldn’t remove them if I tried; they are a part of me. I refused and asked for a more thorough scanning process instead. It did not take nearly as long as removing all my jewelry would have and I still felt like myself…just barefoot and scrambling to collect my things.

Once finished, Ashley and I sat by the courtroom on a wooden bench, chatting with the journalists that we have become acquainted with through our attendance of the hearings. The majority of them are kindhearted individuals who treat us respectfully. (Of course, I can often be disappointed with the final edits shown on their networks, but in person I find them to be lovely people with interesting things to discuss.)

Once it was time to file into the courtroom, we neatly lined up and made our way in. It was notably cold in the room–usually, it is quite the opposite and I find myself suffocating from the heat. I was sat in the first row allotted to the press, which is about three pews back from where the defense and prosecution sit. From where I was positioned, I had an unobstructed view of the defense table especially, as I was placed in the aisle diagonally across from it. About 20 members of the public were filed in last. The defense team seemed to be in high spirits, chatting away. I am always so impressed by their energy and aura.

When Luigi walked in, the room hushed. He seemed to be in a better mood than the previous hearing, however he looked tired as he often does. His hair was short and he had a bit of a beard. He was in his MDC jumpsuit and sneakers. For most of the hearing, he was extremely pensive and took avid notes. There were a few occasions when I caught him looking in my direction. I always try my best to smile encouragingly back but sometimes I feel frozen in those moments and I’m not even sure if I managed to have any reaction. I also noticed him looking at the windows on the right and left sides of the roof, and the details on the walls. I often find myself doing the same; the courtroom is ornate and grand with beautiful wood and marble detailing. I wonder if he might be taking in all the interesting shapes and textures before he goes back to the gray underwhelm and repetition of the Metropolitan Detention Center.

Judge Garnett opened with administrative notes about scheduling. Namely, she wanted to set a pending date of September 8th for jury selection (or January 11th, if it will still be a capital case by then.) She then reminded the court what was to be discussed, namely the Altoona Police Department’s procedures concerning the securing and safeguarding of personal property in a public place. Marc Agnifilo announced that he’d be doing the cross instead of Jacob Kaplan, to which Judge Garnett only made one comment: this hearing was not to be an extension of the state hearing.

The witness was let in from the back and everyone, Luigi included, turned around to watch him walk down the aisle of the courtroom. Deputy Chief Nathan Snyder introduced himself as a man who had been employed at the Altoona Police Department since 2009, climbing up the ranks from a probationary officer to a police chief. Because of his seniority, he oversaw training of probationary officers who sought to become a part of APD. He would train them on written procedures (called general orders and task sheets), take them out onto the streets to put these into practice, and then finally, they’d be administered a written test to pass in order to rank up. Snyder testified to never having viewed the BWC footage or being on scene for Luigi’s arrest on December 9th, 2024. He claimed to have been working in another part of Pennsylvania that morning.

In regards to training procedures for probationary officers, Snyder testified that while general orders were typically approved for the manual and signed by a police chief, task sheets were additional “building blocks” implemented by the training officer to aid probationary officers in learning the concepts laid out in the orders. He claimed that they typically focused on more specific aspects of the orders. The prosecution then introduced several general orders into evidence, which were subsequently posted on the screen for the courtroom to view:

• General order 3.1 which laid out APD’s procedure for “inventory searches of detainees.”

• General order 3.5 which covered the procedures for “receiving and detention of evidence and property.” Judge Garnett asked for clarification as to what would fall under “category B: recovered property.” Snyder testified to this being anything recovered that could be linked to a defendant. He also claimed that any property left on its own, whether it could be identified as relevant or not, would be catalogued.

• General order 3.6 was regarding the “collection and preservation of evidence.”

Snyder testified to all of these orders being in effect as of December 2024, despite not having been signed by an overseeing police chief. Judge Garnett asked Snyder to clarify whether the information on task sheets applied to all officers, or only probationary ones. He testified that they, in fact, applied to all officers.

Two task sheets were then discussed: one regarding custodial arrest procedures and another regarding detention of prisoners. These task sheets stated that a search would be conducted in the intake area and all inventory recovered would be written on the prisoner log before being separated into evidence and personal property (which was then to be promptly stored in a locker until any decisions were made.)

After Judge Garnett asked a few clarification questions, it was time for Marc Agnifilo’s cross examination. He started by requesting clarification of who writes the task sheets and general orders. Snyder claimed that while a training coordinator can write a task sheet, a general order has to be approved by a police chief. This is when Agnifilo pointed out the lack of a police chief’s signature on the pages of the manual. There was the name of a prior chief typed out underneath, however this person was no longer serving as APD’s police chief at the time of the arrest.

The importance of the general orders as compared to task sheets was stressed by Agnifilo, who confirmed once again that one had to be approved by the chief and the other did not. With that in mind, he brought the general orders presented in the direct back up. In order 3.1.9, he pointed out that there is no reference to bags or backpacks. Not only this, but the order is more specifically about searching a detainee’s belongings on their person than it is about searching property found in or around the scene. Snyder agreed. Agnifilo suggested the same issue with 3.1.10.

Agnifilo then brought up general order 3.1.2, which deals with the search and seizure procedures. The prosecution objected and claimed that this was outside of the scope, but Judge Garnett allowed Agnifilo to continue after a brief explanation of his intentions. In the section regarding “impound inventory search” which deals with searching vehicles, there are specific mentions as to how to take closed containers into evidence that are, very notably, omitted in the other general orders. It seems strange that some general orders remain pointedly vague in comparison.

He continued, questioning Snyder on whether it was typical for officers to transport evidence to other departments if the inventory search is meant to be for safeguarding first and foremost. With a small hesitation, Snyder testified that it was not typical to do so. The prosecution objected to this, and instead of sustaining the objection, Judge Garnett asked a clarification question and allowed him to proceed.

For the final leg of the cross, Agnifilo pointed to the prisoner log that the defense submitted as a supplementary document to the court. It lays out every item found on a defendant at the time of their arrest. In this specific example, a journal was logged onto Luigi’s prisoner log. Agnifilo questions if an officer would be expected to read a journal if one is recovered, or just simply log it. Snyder testified that they would not typically read a journal’s contents.

To this, Agnifilo asked Snyder to also confirm the importance of chain of custody, which he did not hesitate to agree on. Lastly, Agnifilo asked Snyder how general orders come to be prepared. Snyder could not answer this for certain, and the defense decided to rest for the time being.

Before she allowed for the redirect to take place, Judge Garnett asked some follow-up questions about a hypothetical arrest example she presented. She inquired as to why APD wouldn’t simply transport a closed bag directly into a safe locker to await any further instruction. Snyder testified that it would be a safety concern, so all weapons had to be properly removed first. She then asked why valuables considered personal property must be inventoried on the prisoner log, to which he testified that it is for safeguards against claims of theft.

At this, Agnifilo jumped up to ask one more question: “If you found something illegal during a search, would you do anything other than continue the search?” Snyder said: “no, we’d stop and get a search warrant.” This felt like a gotcha moment. I think Snyder had slowly been realizing that he was saying what the defense might have been hoping for, as he seemed to stutter through his answers as the proceedings neared their end.

Even in the redirect, when Snyder was asked if he’d get a warrant in other examples, he always testified that he would. The recross was brief, with only a clarification question as to the relevance of general order 3.1.2 being brought up.

After both teams rested for the day, the judge thanked everyone and said that the information presented helped her a lot. She stated that she had a lot to discuss and that we’d be seeing each other on the following Friday for scheduling. Though much was discussed, the hearing itself was quite brief, only lasting a few hours. It was definitely nothing like the state suppression hearings, which were long and seemed to turn into a mini trial. This was succinct and to the point, in comparison.

As we left the courtroom, we chatted with supporters and friends about whether the death penalty would be dropped before the next hearing, or whether Judge Garnett was waiting to announce it in court on the 30th. I felt nervous but hopeful, especially seeing how fair and open Judge Garnett has seemed so far. She’s patient and respectful, yet firm. I can tell she is not dozing off or getting bored with the proceedings, like Judge Carro seemed to in December. Her follow-up questions are always helpful for my own understanding and her statements are easy to follow. I can only believe deeply in my spirit that this will bode well for Luigi and charges three and four will be dropped. I do believe they will be.

Whether or not the charges do get dropped, however, it is vital that those of us who support Luigi keep speaking up and showing palpable support in every which way possible. And that we support those that do, no matter if our methods are different from one another. The more unique approaches that can be added to the mix, the better. Anything that evokes strong emotions can shape how the public, and by extension, the justice system, understands a defendant, a case, or a system itself. Many of us can disassociate from facts, but it’s hard to look away from something that evokes a deep feeling in you. Regardless of the decision on the charges and the long journey ahead, I do believe in our capability to spread awareness about Luigi’s case and to continue fighting for his acquittal.