Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Controlled Dangerous Substance Lawyer | Cale Law Office
Are you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer? Then call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. His the right kind of experience because he focuses his practice on criminal defense. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free.
This appeal involves a protective sweep the house incident the rest of one of its occupants, as the defendant. The protective sweep yielded items that enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant for the entire house. While escaping this warrant, officials found incriminating evidence. The defendant was a convicted felon was named in an arrest warrant for filing the terms of his supervised release. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the protective sweep went too far. The district court denied the motion. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, after review the district court record, concluded the protective sweep under the circumstances of this case was not permissible under the fourth amendment.
The defendant is a convicted felon who was named as an arrest warrant for violating the terms of his probation. To excuse a search warrant, the deputy obtained a search warrant allowing entry into the house only to locate an arrest the defendant. The marshals came to the house to execute the war. When they arrived, the defendant was allegedly in the southeast bedroom. Eventually surrendered and was handcuffed near the front door. Deputies think conducted a protective sweep of the entire house. In the self east bedroom, Debbie’s found two rounds of ammunition of substance appearing to be marijuana. This final that the deputy to obtain a second search warrant. Unlike the first search warrant, the second Ward permit officers to search the entire house for firearms, ammunition, and drugs.
If you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has around, then call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale will attack a search warrant to try to get evidence thrown out. He will look to see whether not a search warrant was valid. If it was not, it may be possible to get evidence thrown out and charges dismissed.
The first wasn’t permit officers to search only for the defendant and to arrest him. Once he surrendered, the officers were dirty have lacked any authority to continue searching. The prosecution invokes the exception for protective sweeps. The protective sweep doctrine provides an exception to the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement. The DIA argued that when the deputy marshal rested defendant, they were permitted to conduct a protective sweep. A protective sweep is not a full search. Instead, it’s a quick, cursory inspection of the premises, permitted with police officers reasonably believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. Even if a protective sweep is permissible, the marshal went beyond the limits imposed by prior case law.
If you need an aggressive criminal defense attorney Tulsa has one to offer. Attorney Stephen Cale and vigorously fight for his clients. He will work hard to get the result that you want. Attorney Cale has successfully gotten charges against his client’s dismissed. That means sometimes clients don’t even have to go to trial. Attorney Stephen Cale is well worth the money.
In the U. S. Supreme Court case, the court allowed protective sweeps into situations. The first situation, authorities can look in closets and other spaces meekly adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack can be immediately launched. The second situation, authorities can look elsewhere the house upon specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that someone dangers remains in the house. In determining whether protective sweep compliance with the fourth amendment, the appellate court will engage a de novo review.
The prosecution argued that the protective sweep within the first situation. This said that the first situation allows the deputy marshals to look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which attack could be launched. The prosecution did not raise this argument the District Court, the appellate court confirming alternate grounds the district court record is adequately developed. The record in this case provided some relevant information but left gaps pertinent to the first situation.
The ammunition and suspected marijuana were found in the southeast bedroom and the defendant was near the front door when he was handcuffed. The time the deputies started up protective switch, the defendant Artie been handcuffed. What is not clear from the record is whether the defendant was inside or outside the house when the protective sweep again. If he was outside the house, the first situation will not allow protective sweep in the southeast bedroom. The protective sweep, justified under the first situation when the arrest occurs outside the house.
If you’re looking for an experienced criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer, then call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has handled numerous jury trials. He handles serious felony cases such as drug trafficking, sex crimes, robbery, child abuse, and murder. Attorney Cale fights vigorously for his clients. His clients give him high reviews.
The defendant may have been in the living room when the protective sweep again. He was, that would’ve been a wall in the hallway between the defendant in the southeast bedroom. The purposes of a protective sweep, the kitchen did not enjoy the living room with the two were separated by solid bar counter obscuring the view between the two rooms. For the record, the court cannot discern the link to the hallway the distance between the defendant and the southeast bedroom. Therefore, it lacks enough information the record to characterize the southeast bedroom and the defense location as adjacent. The protective sweep inquiry is very fact specific and that one of the guiding considerations is the house this particular configuration. The prosecution argued that it doesn’t matter where must the defendant was at the time of the protective sweep because he had earlier been arrested in the southeast bedroom.