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

If you’re looking for a marijuana defense lawyer, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. When you meet with attorney Cale, he will develop a free defense strategy plan document for you. Attorney Cale experience a lawyer who focuses on criminal defense.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with trafficking in controlled dangerous substance-marijuana. The jury sentenced him to six years in prison. The defendant appealed. Here’s a summary the facts of the case. A drug agent stopped the defendant on Interstate 40 for following too closely. Here is the defendant warning as to search the car. When the defendant refused to consent to search the rental car, the agent called for a drug dog to sniff the car. After the drug dog alerted, agent, search the car and found 200 pounds of marijuana.

Before the stop, the agent was assigned to highway interdiction duties. He was stationary the center of the interstate monitoring traffic. The agent’s duties and telemonitoring interstate highways in Oklahoma to intercept criminal activity. We need it for saw the defendant’s car, he was not breaking any traffic laws. The agent followed the car because it was a rental car without state plates. He was the car until the defendant committed to a traffic violation, then pulled him over.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court mistakenly denied his motion to quash his arrest, suppress evidence and dismissed the charges. He argued that the drug agent who made the traffic stop did not have the authority to enforce the traffic laws. The defendant argued that the agent has no statutory authorization to can that traffic interdiction. That means he can make traffic stops. Therefore, the stop was illegal and the evidence in the case should have been suppressed, he argued.

But sustained the defendant agreed that a law enforcement officer cannot make an arrest outside his jurisdiction. The only issue is whether the agent had general or limited jurisdiction. Neither party cited any cases finding that the agent has the authority to enforce traffic laws.

The prosecution suggested that the appellate court must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals will review findings of fact under an abuse of discretion standard. It will review questions of law de novo.

Lawmakers, and the Bureau of legislation. The statute concerning the Bureau and’s authority states a couple things. Agents are peace officers generally. The responsibility investigating alleged violations and have the authority to arrest the suspected of having violated the provisions of the uniform controlled dangerous substances act. Drug agents can carry firearms.

Drug agents can also execute search warrants, arrest warrants, subpoenas, and sentences. Further, the agents can arrest someone without a warrant if the officer has public cause for believing that the person is committing a felony under the uniform controlled dangerous substances act. All other authority concerns this act.

The defendant’s position was that the act limited the scope of the agent’s authority, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. This authority did not permit the agent to conduct traffic stops, the defendant argued. Principles of statutory interpretation govern the appellate court. Interpreting the statutory provisions, the appeals court must avoid any construction that would make any part of the statute useless or dumb. The text of the statutes also guides interpretation. In order to give effect to the legislature’s intentions, the appeals court interpret statute using the plain and ordinary meaning of their language.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the statute ensured that THC was not a duplicate of other law enforcement agencies. Specific placement controls over general statutes granting general authority. The support the conclusion that the specific placement of authority for the agency within the act controls over general peace officer’s. The act has specific language. Therefore it limits the authority of the drug agent.

Vehicles used to transport drugs are subject to forfeiture, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. In order to force the provision upper having transportation of drugs, Jesus must have the ability to legally interact with those vehicles. One primary method by which law enforcement officer interact with vehicles is by enforcing traffic laws. On specific facts in this case, the agent had the authority to make traffic stops connected with the enforcement of this act.

Between March and April, the defendant and his dad sold methamphetamine to undercover agents. The agents monitored and recorded each of these buys. The defendant always directed his customers for certain house. There either met with him in person or gave math to others acting on his behalf. In each instance, the undercover buyers bought trafficking quantities of methamphetamine from the defense operation. The last transaction, the defendant also arranged a cell list stolen pistol to the informer.

On appeal, the defendant claimed that the court should not have uses deferred sentence on a prior drug conviction to enhance punishment for his convictions in this case. The defendant entered a plea of guilty and 2003 to a charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The court gave him a deferred sentence with five years of supervised probation. Defense counsel objected the trial to the use of his guilty plea and deferred sentence to enhance his punishment. Therefore he preserves his claim for appeal.

The law provides for a specific to from the procedure for first-time drug offenders. When the defendant violates the terms of the probation, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt to proceed as otherwise provided. The defendant fulfills the terms of the probation the court must discharge the defendant and dismissed the proceedings against him. When this happens the defendant is not deemed guilty of a conviction for purposes of title 63. This discharge a dismissal may occur only once with respect to any person.

An exposed arrest conviction shall not later be regarded as an arrest or conviction for purposes of employment, civil rights, or any statute, regulation, or any other public or private purpose. Provided, however, they such plea of guilty or finding of guilt shall constitute a conviction of the offense for the purpose of this act or any of the criminal statutes under which the existence of a prior conviction is relevant.