This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation. You’ll also get a free defense strategy plan is custom-made for your case.
Attorney Stephen Cale always tries hard to get the best results for his client. His first priority is to try to get the case dismissed either before trial or at trial. He’s always looking for a way to minimize the impact criminal charge has on his client.
This summer is a case of Hallcy vs. State. It’s a 2007 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals case. Holsey was tried before judge convicted of possession of controlled dangerous substances. The judge sentenced him to five years with all but the first 45 days suspended. Here are the facts of the case.
In April 2004, to police officer stopped the car in which Hallcy was a passenger because it had been reported stolen. Hallcy with people driver was ordered out of the car. One officer spoke to the driver, the other Frist Hallcy for possible weapons. The ulcer felt an object that he recognized touch as a medicine bottle. He also testified that in no time that he believed the pill bottle was a weapon.
The officer asked Hallcy what it was. As replied that was a ball that was the is. He said that the driver and give it to him when the officers turn on their emergency lights that he did not know what the bottle contained. When he also took the bottle from Hallcy’s pocket and opened it, and discovered three rocks of crack cocaine interest of Hallcy.
Hallcy did what Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale uses as a weapon against the prosecution. He filed a motion to suppress. The only witness at the suppressing hearing was the arresting officer. The district court denied the motion to suppress finding that the officers justified in seizing the pill bottle during the pat-down search because Hallcy was an occupant of a stolen vehicle because of his claimed ownership of the pill bottle and what was inside. After the judge’s ruling, there was a nonjury trial. Hallcy generates his motion to suppress to preserve the issue. The trial court denied the motion the second time and found Hallcy guilty.
Hallcy did not challenge the lawfulness of the stop of a vehicle or the frisked for weapons. Instead, he argued that his motion to suppress evidence sustained because the officer knew the pill bottle is not a weapon and did not have probable cause to go beyond the protective search for weapons. In this vein, he argued that the officer exceeded the legitimate scope and search your move the pill bottle from else pocket and opened it.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the issue before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was a whether the officers touching perception of medicine bottle of Patty the outer surfaces of Hallcy’s pants, considering connection with surrounding circumstances, provided probable cause was believed that the bottle contains contraband before he reached into Hallcy’s pocket to retrieve it.
If you want an attorney who will try to get evidence against them thrown out, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 your initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale will work hard for you. He is very high Google ratings and great reviews from his clients.
The US Supreme Court has recognized the existence of the plain feel exception to the fourth amendment support requirement. It is analogous to the plain view exception, which permits warrantless seizures of obvious contraband discovered during the course of a lawfully conducted frisk research. If an officer lawfully pats down and suspects at her clothing and feels an object whose contours or mass makes it’s identity immediately apparent, there’s been no invasion ofthe suspect’s privacyy beyond that already authorized by the officers search for weapons. If the odds of his contraband, it’s warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that are part of the Plainview context. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals recognized the plain feel exception in Abraham vs. State.
In order for seizure of contraband to be justified under the plain feelexception to the warrant requirement the following must be true; 1) the patdown must be permissible under Terry vs. Ohio; 2) the contraband must be detected in the course of the Terry search; and 3) the incriminating nature of the object perceived to be contraband must be imminently apparent to the officer. The term immediately apparent for purposes of plain feel analysis does not mean that an officer must know for certain what the item felt is. Instead it means that only that there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that courts have split on whether the under the plain feel doctrine an officer may seize a container that is not itself contraband does not conform to the shape the contraband. An example of this is a medicine bottle or matchbook. A test for judging whether or not the existence of probable cause is appropriate is whether reasonable prudent officer, considering the totality of the circumstances confronting him and drawing from his experience, would be warranted in the belief that an offense has been committed.
Probable cause is a flexible, commonsense standard, require that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that certain items may be contraband or useful as evidence a crime. Does not demanding showing that such belief be correct. A practical, non-technical probability based on factual practical considerations the incriminating evidence is involved is on the is required, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. This is based on the case of Brinegar vs. United States, a U.S. Supreme Court case.
The, Court of Criminal Appeals found that the totality of the circumstances analysis for determining probable cause in a plane pill case is the better approach to apply. This analysis is not limited the conclusion drawn from the information garnered from the place officer’s tactile perception of the object. Instead it allows that touch be considered in light of the officers training experience and of her present circumstances. For example, a medicine pummels container with obvious legitimate uses for prescription medicine or other small objects. However it can also be used for wrong purposes. An officer’s tactile indication of the pill bottle, standing alone does not give rise to probable cause to seize a bottle or opened it to reveal its contents. However, when officers presently with an object that has but nine as well as a list uses, such as a medicine bottle in this case, the officers training experience in other present circumstances can inform his perception.
Hallcy argued that once an officer has assured himself at the item felt was on a weapon, a search must end. He may that argument on previous cases, which have since been overruled.
The ulcer who search and arrested Hallcy testified that he was a six year veteran in law enforcement and that in his experience it was common for people die drugs and pill bottles in their pockets. We felt the pill bottle houses pocket, the defendant said that he did not know what was the driver given to them when officers signaled him to stop. From the circumstances, would not require extensive training or long sprains for an officer to reasonably infer this medicine bottle winding contains contraband. Even though probable cause imposes a stricter requirement than reasonable suspicion, it is not so demanding a standard is to have required more information that was available to the officer.