Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Marijuana Case Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

Are you looking for 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 20 years. He has the right kind of experience because he focuses his practice on criminal defense. Call attorney Stephen Cale today to schedule your free initial consultation.

Rogers County deputies monitor communications between a couple in a confidential informant. The couple told the confidential informant that they were returning Rogers County from Tulsa with methamphetamine. A woman said that they cannot deliver the tracks to him that night because they needed to make some of the customer deliveries. Officers ranged with the cost of the actual informant to make a controlled by a couple the next day.

The next morning, the couple texted and called a confidential informant. They stated that they had awakened and would be him soon. The three met at the informant’s by one criminal methamphetamine from the peer $400. Law enforcement officers also monitor the communication before and during the transaction. At the meeting, the pair bragged to the informant about how much methamphetamine they had. After the transaction, officers met the informant to bring debrief him and to secure the drugs, which tested positive for methamphetamine.

Informant gives directions to where the couple lives. Officers, in turn, confirmed that location along with the defendant’s brother based on the previous encounters with him. By days later, the Rogers County deputy prepared an affidavit to search the residence. The progress County judge signed the search warrant, which authorized officers to seize methamphetamine and other items related to drug dealing. Two days later, the officer searched the home. They encountered the pair and the defendant detained them outside. In the home, the Discover seven firearms loaded with ammunition. The ulcer covered marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia.

If you’re looking for the best drug criminal defense attorney Tulsa has, then call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale is handled many drug cases. He’s been successful in getting some of those charges against his client’s dismissed. Attorney Stephen Cale’s the right choice because he focuses his practice on criminal defense.

The deputies affidavit list of the address of the first page and contain aerial photos of the property in the first two pages. Include a label stating residence to be searched in an arrow pointing to the location. The affidavit addressed four subjects. The first was a description of the property not to be seen. The second was the deputy’s training experience. The third was drug traffickers, practices, backspace one. And lastly, the affidavit contained backs to establish probable cause. The last part was based mostly on information from two sources: the deputy and the informant.

The defendant moved to suppress the firearms and ammunition evidence. When you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer, you need someone who will fight the charges. Attorney Stephen Cale will begin your case by fighting to get the charge dismissed. He can do this through a motion to suppress the evidence. That’s a way of trying to get evidence thrown out in the case dismissed.

The defendant argued that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause. Additionally, he argued that the good faith exception did not apply because the affidavit failed to tie the Paris criminal activity to the address. The judge concluded the report that the motion should be granted. The prosecution objected, staying there was in the factual support link in the evidence of criminal activity to the address. The district court rejected the report and denied defendants motion.

The court concluded that the affidavit sufficiently connected information on criminal activity to the location of the search. The court said that it provided probable cause was an up evidence to justify the application the good faith exception. As a result, the defendant entered into a plea agreement. He pled guilty to the cell count of and the diamond but reserved the right to appeal the district courts to novice motion to suppress. The defendant challenges the district court’s ruling regarding probable cause in the good faith exception.

Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale said that determinations relating to the applicability of the good faith exception are conclusions of law. The appellate court will review the lower court ruling de novo. In reviewing the denial the motion to suppress, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. It will uphold the disc court’s factual findings less clearly erroneous.

The fourth amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. To authorize a valid search warrant under the fourth amendment, search one must be supported by probable cause. This requires more than mere suspicion but less evidence than is necessary to convict. Ordinarily, courts will remedy a fourth amendment violation by invoking the exclusionary rule to exclude the prosecution’s introduction of the unlawfully seized evidence. But the search warrant is later found the light probable cause, the evidence seized is not a silly have to be suppressed. The Supreme Court recognized the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, the warrant is not supported by probable cause. The evidence sees pursuant to the warrant may not be suppressed at the executing officer acted with an objective good faith belief. Reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate creates a presumption that the officers acting in good faith. The good faith presumption is not absolute. An officer’s reliance is objectively unreasonable when the warrant is based on an affidavit so lacking in this you have probable cause is to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.

An affidavit lacks indicia probable cause when it does not contain factual support. When you consider whether the officer rely to get faith upon a warrant, we must look to the underlying documents to see whether they are devoid of factual support. You cannot merely contain facts of the container legally sufficient. The affidavit devoid of factual support is one that merely states suspicions, police, or conclusions, without providing some underlying factual circumstances regarding veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge.