This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a crime, you want the best attorney, right? Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. He’ll also provide you with a free, custom-made defense strategy plan.
This is the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals case of Brumfield vs. State. It is a 2007 case. Brumfield was tried by jury convicted of aggravated manufacture of controlled dangerous substance and unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In both instances, the drug was methamphetamine. The judge sentenced Brumfield to 20 years in the first count and two years in the second. Here are the facts of the case. In March 2005 Tiffany Hyde was present in the residence of a Johnny pain when officers from the and was placed apartment served a search warrant for the home. They discovered a methamphetamine lab. To avoid being arrested or charged, high degree to get to the home of Brumfield to see if there was methamphetamine presence or if he was cooking methamphetamine. I’d had been the living girlfriend of Brumfield, but she had recently moved out. However she still had a key. Hyde went to Brumfield’s home and while she was there, Brumfield and his new girlfriend snorted methamphetamine.
After leaving the house, I met up with an officer and told him about using methamphetamine with Brumfield and that she had cotton the drug of a bag which had several other small plastic bags of methamphetamine. I’d also form the officer that should been living with Brumfield that he typically correct methamphetamine in his home about three times per week. The woman also informed the officer that the last of that she had witnessed Brumfield cooking methamphetamine was about 10 days beforehand. The officer then use this information to get a search warrant of Brumfield’s home.
The next morning, four officers went to the parental home and asked to the search warrant. An officer testified that he knocked the door and it to defy the group as police and as they had a warrant to search the property. After waiting for about 20 seconds with no response. When the officers posted open the front door with a sledgehammer. This all Brumfield the woman coming to the front door from the back bedroom area. The officers also noticed a strong chemical smell. They associated us owner with the manufacture methamphetamine.
During a later search of the home, discovered a large class chart containing two layers a liquid solution. The solution tested positive for methamphetamine the ulcer’s officer discovered a silverback contain numerous striker plates had been removed from paper matchbooks the bag a striker plates was in a bag of dog food. In addition to these items, the officers found various other materials associated with the production methamphetamine.
On appeal, Brumfield argued that the manner in which the officers executed a search warrant violated his fourth amendment doctor announce requirement. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the defendant use a tactic of filing a motion to suppress on a fourth amendment violation. Attorney Cale files motions to suppress to keep evidence from being used by the prosecution. If you believe that your the victim of an illegal search, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.
Brumfield contended that the information the affidavit for the warrant to search is a was insufficient to establish probable cause for the warrant because the affidavit failed to state that the former girlfriend was first encountered in the best of a separate methamphetamine lab and that she was under the influence of this drug at the time she provides information. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals looked to a recent case from the US Supreme Court decided in June 2006.
In the US Supreme Court case of Hudson vs. Michigan, the court recognized that the common law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one. The court further knowledge that in Wilson vs. Arkansas, the court concluded that the knock and announce rule for officers executed a search warrant is constitutionally required under the fourth amendment. However, the Hudson court held that a violation of the knock and announce rule by officers executed a search warrant is not required that evidence obtained in the later search be suppressed. The court recognized three interest protected by the knock and announce requirement. First of protection of human life and limb since I now centuries can provoke violence from surprise residence attempted to prevent protect themselves. Secondly is the protection of property since the rule gives an individual the opportunity to avoid destruction of property caused by forcible entry. Lastly, the interests of values of privacy and dignity is a concern since rule gives people an opportunity prepare themselves for entry of police.
The US Supreme Court in Hudson emphasized that the knock and announce rule is never protected once interest in preventing the government from seeking or taking evidence described in a warrant. The court then examined the social costs of deterrence benefits of applied the exclusionary rule to cases where officers violated the knock and announce rule. It concluded that the social cost of applying the exclusionary rule to knock and announce violations are considerable. The incentive for such violations is minimal to begin with, it said. In the deterrence against them are substantial, and are in fact greater than the factors to turning warrantless entries in the case of map was decided. It concluded that resort to the remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt was not justified.
The state argued its case based on Hudson that the evidence did not need to be suppressed. Brumfield argued, however, that the Hudson case does not govern the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals interpretation of title 21 section 1228. This provision authorizes the use of force in the execution of a search warrant on occupied home only under two circumstances. First, it sets of criteria to which a no-knock warrant can be issued by a magistrate, thereby allowing a forcible entry without any warning. It does so where there is a reasonable cause to believe that one or more specific exit circumstances exist. Otherwise, this section does not allow for the forcible entry of a home for the execution of a search warrant unless he also has been refused minutes at first he notice of his authority and purpose. Although no-knock warrants were not legislatively permitted until 1990, the state’s exceptions have existed since statehood.