Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Best DUI Drug Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with a DUI, you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. He’s right kind of attorney for you because he focuses his practice on criminal defense.

During a drug investigation, police officers detaining question the defendant. After a positive drug dog alerted, the search his car locate a firearm. Police also obtained a search warrant and search the search and that he had rented. There they found firearms and ammunition. Based on the evidence sees, prosecutors charged the defendant with one count of being appellant possession. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, contain that the police seized evidence in violation of the fourth amendment.

At the suppressing hearing, he also less the police had elicited his statement about God in his car in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court denied his motion. He then entered a conditional plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his most suppress. Here’s a summary the case. In October, the Tulsa Police Department drug enforcement agency executed a search warrant at the house owned by the defendant’s brother. Officers found about three ounces of cocaine upon grams marijuana. The also found the skill containing drug residue, a large amount of cash, and various documents. The documents include a receipt for the storage unit.

The police also arrested another person he was at the house during the search. An agent interview the man, who admitted to being a drug courier. He said that he made four trips between July and October from Los Angeles to Tulsa to do the letter drugs. He also asserted that the defendant was a drug trafficking partner and cocaine dealer. He stated that he delivered a coffee can containing cocaine to another person two days earlier. He’s also a pickup to copycatting give the guy $500 as a carrier fee. The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer will tell you to never talk to police.

That evening, officers visited the storage building the so the receipt of found nothing. That’s because he was able to procure a K-9 unit dispel storage unit. So he left. The next morning, Tulsa returned to the storage unit called for K-9 unit. K-9 officer arrived with his certified drug dog. The dog swept the unit but did not alert to the presence of drugs. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that the detective informed him that alert was unlikely because the door to the unit was closed in the unit had no airflow.

The officers returned to the front office where the reviewed the rental agreement in the activity log associated with the unit. The rental agreement confirmed that the defendant was a renter the unit. The activity log revealed that he had accessed the unit 23 times of the proceeding three months. It was increasing access in the five weeks before the search of the house.

While the officers were in the front office, the defendant arrived at the facility intended access is unit. He was unable to do so because the facilities manager had placed a committee lock on the door. The defendant went to the front office to ask about the lot. The facilities hundred 40 of that officers had arrived. The officers that the officer met the defendant outside as he was entering a car. The officer approached the front inside the door. He informed the defendant that he was not under arrest but was being detained for biscuit purposes. He asked him to exit his vehicle. The defendant complied. The officer frisked him and did not find any weapons.

The officer, the detective asked him to return with his truck dog. While waiting for the K-9 unit arrived, the officer informed the defendant that he was going to have a drug dog sniff the car. Yes, the defendant’s car contained anything that could harm the dog or its handler. The defendant replied that there were no drugs in the vehicle. They did have again and computer case inside the vehicle. In light of his statement about as a weapon, the officer handcuffed the defendant.

About 30 to 45 minutes later, the detective returned with his truck dog. The drug dog sniffed the exterior of the fence car and alerted to the presence of illegal drugs and the pastor compartment. Officer search the vehicle. The locate again and computer case but did not find any drugs. Later that day, the officer applied for a search warrant for the defendant storage unit. Stay court judge issued the warrant, which the officers executed. The found two rifles and ammunition.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with one count of felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition. The defendant moved to suppress, arguing officers like original suspicion to initiate investigative detention. Therefore, the evidence sees during the search of his car, the state he made during the detention, the evidence sees from the storage unit were tainted, he argued. Defendant also challenges the search warrant for the storage unit as invalid because the affiant knowingly or recklessly included false statements and an amended material information from the affidavit supporting the warrant.

If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800 attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. He has extensive experience with drug crimes. He’s been successful in getting some drug charges dismissed.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the defendant’s motion suppress. First, ruled original suspicion supported the defendant’s initial detention because, based on the totality of circumstances, the officer had a particular rice an objective basis for suspecting the defendant my the about to engage in legal wrongdoing. Secondly, it concluded that the defendant statements about the gun was not obtain in violation of the Fifth Amendment because he was not in custody does is subject to interrogation.