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

Are you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer for DUI? Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has been practicing for 20 years. He has the right kind of experience because he focuses his practice on criminal defense. Clients say he is well worth the money.

The court concluded that drug dog sniff subsequent search were of the car were not unconstitutional because a occurred during a valid investigative detention. Officers probably rest of the defendant after he admitted to possession of a firearm and canine sniff of an already legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the Fouth amendment. Lastly, the court rejected the defense challenge to the search warrant. He can included the search of the storage unit was proper because the fence rental agreement with the rental business precluded him from having a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit and provide his consent to the search.

The defendant pled guilty was sentence. The District Court granted this motion frame his relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel make a display, sentence, and judgment. The defendant later entered a conditional plea, reserving his right to appellate courts to novice motion to suppress. The district court sentenced him to 15 years in prison and four years of supervised relief. In reviewing this court’s denial the motion to suppress, the appellate court will review de novo the district court’s ultimate determination of reasonableness under the fourth amendment. It will look at the case in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

Investigative detention occurs when police officers detained person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. Investigative detention is reasonable if two things occur. First is justified at its inception by specific and articulable facts that give rise to reasonable suspicion the person has or is committing a crime. Secondly it is reasonably related to the scope the circumstances which justified in affairs the first place. The reasonable suspicion is a less rigorous standard of probable cause, requires more than a suspicion or hunch.

Defendant argues that the initial detention violated his fourth amendment because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detaining him. The appellate court said that the officer infected have reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity the timing this in the detention. First, the receipt for the storage unit restricted defendant found along with drugs, scales, and large amounts of money they for support the detention. The officer knew from training experience that drug traffickers often store drugs, proceeds, and other evidence related to the drug transactions in storage facilities. The activity law expulsion the officer suspicion. Additionally, the defendant attempted access to storage unit the morning after his brother’s house had been searched.

If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, you need to 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 will aggressively defend his clients. He works hard to get the best possible result for them. In many instances, he can get a charge dismissed. Call him right away. He is well worth the money.

The officer knew Swan provide the agent with information link the defendant to drug trafficking activity. The ulcer originally relied on statements because the informant’s identity was known. He claimed he had first had knowledge of the defense activities, and an statements implicating himself in criminal activity. Information provided by known informant is more reliable than information from any anonymous source. Informants allegations are sufficiently reliable when the informant claimed to have personally witnessed the defendant’s drug transactions have assisted in the preparation of drug distribution.

Tulsa can reasonably consider the defense criminal history of drug offense is because while knowledge of persons prior criminal, is not sufficient itself to rise to the level reasonable suspicion, it can combine with other factors to support the requisite standard of suspicion. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detaining the defendant. The court next look at the issues of the scope of the tension in a statement about guns.

Defendant also argued the scope of dissension extends its initial justification. He can to the officer did not have original suspicion to frisk him or to detain him an additional 30 to 45 minutes. He said that officer should not have waited for the canine to arrive. The defendant, however, failed to make these arguments for the district court. He argued only that the initial detention was unlawful intended the subsequently discovered evidence. When a motion to suppress evidence is raised for the first on appeal, the appellate court must decline review. This waiver provision applies only to the failure to make a pretrial motion, but also the failure to include a particular argument the motion.

The defendant also argued that the statement he made by the gun in the vehicle was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The defendant raised this issue for the first time that the evidentiary hearing, not in this motion suppress. The slow may be grounds for deeming that the defendant waived his argument on appeal. However, even if the defendant statements were obtained in violation Miranda, the guy was discovered as a result of the drug dogs alert, not the defendant statement. The government cars sufficient to affirm the defense conviction.

The defendant also challenges the district court’s rejection of his search warrant challenge in’s determination that the rental agreement provided consent for the officers to search for the storage unit. Any additional firearm and ambition sees from the storage would’ve been no further impact on his conviction or sentence. The principles of judicial restraint prevent us from addressing an issue that is unnecessary to the outcome case. When you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.