Tulsa criminal defense attorney | Cell phone searches Part 2

This content was written for Cale Law Office

If the police have conducted an illegal search, a criminal case could be dismissed. For aggressive legal representation, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with Cale law office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale will work with you to develop a strategy to defeat the state.

It’s extremely important free to contact me if you’ve been arrested or charged with a crime, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. In one case, the state argued the evidence should not have been suppressed because officers only download the pictures and they cut a warrant. The trial court found that the defendant seen the con included its search incident to his arrest. Still, the state argued that there was probable cause for the warrant. The state noted that the defendant was walking in a high drug area extends under surveillance for drug activity and for which police had search warrants. Further that he possessed been stopped. Stay contends that all this would’ve supported a finding of probable cause for the search warrant.

However the warrant itself explicitly stated that while looking through the defendant’s phone, the affiant found several pictures of the defendant holding guns and cocaine. The if I use these photographs of as a basis for probable cause for this state admit that solely on the warrantless, unconsented search, but argues only that it’s not be void because the other information in the warrant could been used establish probable cause.

While the other information that was probable cause to arrest and search the defendant, it did not establish because a search the contents of his cell phone. The state also relied on is were about to serve reports on the two residences but there’s nothing in the record, other than pictures on his phone, next the defendant to either the residence and those residence wars cannot justify the search down. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale works hard to fight against the state and keep his clients from going to jail or prison.

State also argued that warrant for the phone lacked probable cause, the evidence should not be suppressed because the officers warrant in good faith. The state argues that in cases dating back to 1992, the Oklahoma court of criminal appeals adopted the good faith argument. The appellate court adopted the good faith doctrine Stringdown vs. State. However, the state offered no compelling reason to apply the doctrine in the case which will not applied the exclusionary rule when officers act with an objective Labette their conduct is lawful. This is not a question of a warrant, or one which relied on an informant without establishing the foreman’s credibility. The state was based on the results of an illegal search. When the stop and search occurred, there was no finding appellate precedent that could justify the search of the defendant cell phone. So officers could not have acted in an objectively reasonable reliance on previous settled law. The initial search of defense phone was unlawful, and therefore good faith exception does not apply.

In its second argument, the state argues that the search was lawful under two other because the officers were looking on the phone friend is directly related to a crime for which defendant was arrested. One case included the success stress that it was appropriate given circumstances unique to the vehicle context. Riley emphasized UNIX exception. It’s later discussion of the nature of the cell phones starkly differentiates them from the vehicle search context Riley lewd the can’t exception in a clearly stated requirement that the search cell phone data to get a warrant. Additionally, nothing the record supports this claim. The defendant was arrested for possessing a small quantity of loose marijuana in a pocket. There was a complete crime up, and needed no further investigation.

Lastly, the district court erred in suppressing evidence because please acted reasonably and a police misconduct occurred. Was generally that suppression of the serve no purpose, because it would not deter police conduct. This claim depends on whether the officers acted reasonably and searching the cell phone upon arrest but the started before, the officer search of the defendant’s cell phone was unreasonable.

In another case, the defendant appealed his felony and misdemeanor convictions regarding ensuring methamphetamine within 2000 feet of a school, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of drug paraphernalia. The judge sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison, another fine the senses to be served concurrently, with for time served. So issue on appeal was whether the warrantless, the skin search of a parolees home by law enforcement acting performance 10 violated his fourth amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.

In June 2012 the district attorney’s office received a tip that the defendant, who was a pre-was making methamphetamine in his apartment. As a condition of parole, the defendant sign rules and conditions of parole that he understood that at any time or place he is subject to search. The conditions for the vehicle of any property under his control subject search.

A district attorney investigator a company by several police officers conducted a warrantless search of the support three weeks after receipt of the tip. Officers found marijuana, baggies, call Pantani meth residue, syringes, pills, and mushroom cooking methamphetamine. Police also found loaded drain opener, which will use to make methamphetamine.

The defendant’s apartment was secured by combination padlock. The defendant said the closet did not belong to him and stated man is a closet to store tools. Police cut off the law compound more lighter fluid and other ingredients to make methamphetamine. Police also found other items that are used to make meth. The defendant was outside when the right and he objected to the search. However, he was reminded by the investigator that are the terms of his parole agreement is person subject search.

Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence during the search of his apartment. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the defendant consent to search by all law enforcement officers under the parole agreement and that the tip that the defendant was manufacturing method propulsion for the search. The defendant objected to the mission of the seized evidence at trial, preserving the claim for appellate review.