Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Controlled Substance Lawyer | 918-277-4800
Are you looking for 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 nearly two decades of experience. He also has the right kind of experience because he focuses his practice on criminal defense. Attorney Cale gets high reviews from his clients. He is well worth the money.
The defendant is a convicted felon. This prevents him from lawfully possessing a gun. Law enforcement authority stop. Saw the defendant put an assault rifle in the trunk of the car. Deciding what authorities arrange for a local officer to stop the defendant for a traffic violation and to search the trunk. Curing of these arrangements, deputy saw the defendant speeding and initiated a traffic stop. After telling the defendant had been speeding, the deputy looked for an assault rifle.
The deputy did not find a rifle. However, he did find a kilogram of cocaine the car’s interior. The discovery of cocaine the car became key evidence for one of the eventual charges that the defendant face. In defending against these charges, the defendant argued that the search violated the fourth amendment. This argument did not commence the District Court, and the case went to trial.
At the trial, the prosecution presented testimony by the owner of the car. The owner pleaded guilty to his own drug crimes. The sooner testified that he and the defendant had worked together to sell cocaine. The defendant tried to impeaching the owner. To do so, the defendant tried to question them about how much expected his sentence to drop as a result of the plea agreement. If it was allowed to from the plea agreement in general terms but not in detail.
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. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale is handled numerous drug crime cases. His been successful in getting some drug charges against his client’s dismissed. Attorney Cale fights hard for his clients.
On appeal, the defendant challenged the introduction of evidence of following the cocaine found in the car. The deputy and probable cause to believe that there was assault rifle the truck. So, he looked there. But he claims he cannot see the back of the truck because the long speaker box blocking his view. Does he the truck matter, he entered the back seat and pulled an armrest down. It was then that the deputy found the cocaine.
The defendant alleged the deputy violated the fourth amendment by going into the interior of the car important armrest down. The appellate court disagreed, concluding that the officer complies with the fourth amendment back originally and try to find a way to see the back of the truck. Secondly, the defendant challenged the restrictions placed on his cross-examination of the car’s owner. Even if the restrictions violated the defendant’s competition clause rights, any possible violation women harmless in light of the strength the prosecution’s case.
If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, you need the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. Finally, the defendant alleges sufficiency of the evidence, destruction of evidence, and withholding of evidence violation of Brady vs. Maryland. The appellate court rejected these challenges, concluding that the trial evidence was sufficient to connect and evidence was not destroyed a bad faith. The court first examined the motion to suppress.
The appellate court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and view the evidence in the light most verbal to the prosecution. A factual findings clearly erroneous and relax evidentiary support of the review of the evidence sees us for determining there’s been a mistake. The ultimate original list of the search, however, is reviewed de novo. The defendant to suppress evidence of cocaine, arguing that the deputies search had exceeded the scope permitted by the fourth minute. The District Court granted the deputies testimony ruled that the search of comply with the fourth minute. The defendant challenge this ruling.
In challenging the ruling, the defendant does not question the existence of probable cause regarding the presence of an inside rifle in the trunk. Instead, he asserts that the deputy acted unreasonably by entering the backseat and pulling armrest town. The appellate court disagreed. Law enforcement officers may search the car without a warrant upon probable cause to believe that contraband is present. The search is permitted only the parts of the car when officers could respond expect to find the contraband.
The scope of the warrantless search of an automobile is defined by the object of the search of the places in which there is probable cause to believe that may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that container place in the trunk of the taxi contains contraband or evidence does not justify the search of the entire. The officers are limited not only in the place to search but also in a manner the searching. The search must be reasonable under the circumstances.
The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer will tell you to never talk to police. Talking to the police can never help you, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. It will only hurt you. Therefore, an officer can decide how to carry on search as long as the officer’s decision is reasonable. For example, the officer may deem it assert perform separate acts of entry or opening in order to conduct a search. The deputy testified that a rifle could fit behind the speaker box. Police officers control inferences from prior experience.
The defendant criticized the deputy’s explanation, contending that the assault rifles to be the defendant in the part of the trunk and from view. For his contention, the defendant relied on a manual describe the length of assault rifles. But the defendant failed to present the district court with evidence of this manual. Without such evidence, the district court could originally rely on the deputy’s explanation for why he had to see in the back of the truck.