<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/U2_A41kutyQ?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

This content was written For Cale Law Office

When you’ve been charged with a crime, you want a Tulsa criminal defense attorney who is going to work hard for you. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Atty. Stephen Cale will also develop a free defense strategy plan tailored just for your case. You can take it with you.

The defendant was charged with one cat count of kidnapping and one count of a different committed act of violence. He filed a motion to suppress and to quash and to set aside the information. The district judge granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The state appealed racing three propositions.

The charge against the defendant stems from his arrest for a single misdemeanor count of domestic abuse. A sheriff’s deputy was dispatched to a call of ongoing domestic abuse. Another deputy officer from a nearby Police Department also responded. Within 10 minutes presented call, deputy an officer arrived in the area and located the alleged victim. She was hiding in a trailer near the airport.

While still visibly shaking and crying, the woman describing involved in our altercation with the defendant as they were driving down the road. They have been in a dating relationship. During the altercation, she managed to jump from the vehicle and run into a field. The deputy personally observed recent physical injuries to the woman, including blood on her nose and under an eye. She also had swelling to lessen her mouth and bruises on her arms and legs. The other deputy did not respond to the pickup location but instead attempted to locate the defendant. He was found Eric car wash was arrested for domestic abuse about an hour after the initial call was received by police. The rest was made at the request of the deputy that interviewed the victim and based on information known to him. Further investigation after the rest led to additional charges.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress arguing, among other things, that the deputy that arrested him either personally observe the recent injuries to the alleged victim nor was aware of the existence of such injuries to information connected by another officer. The state argued that the collective knowledge doctrine to be applied to justify the deputies warrantless arrest for domestic abuse. In response, the defendant did not dispute the general applicability of the doctrine,but he argued that because information known to the deputy was not actually communicated to the arresting officer, the arrest was unlawful.

Court found that the first deputy did personally observe recent physical injury to the alleged victim. Although there was some dispute about whether the deputy actually relayed the information concerning the injury to the arresting deputy, the trial court made a factual finding that the deputy did not do so. Consequently because this information was not communicated, the trial court found the collective knowledge doctrine cannot operate just fine arrest. Concluding that the defendant’s arrest was unlawful, the court suppressed evidence derived from it.

The state argued on appeal that the suppressed evidence forms a substantial part of the state’s evidence in the case states ability to prosecute the defendant is substantially impaired without the suppressed evidence. Before reaching the merits of the legality of the defense arrest, and the Oklahoma court of criminal pills first addressed to preliminary questions. The first one was which party bears the burden of establishing the legality of a misdemeanor arrest challenged on constitutional grounds, but under section 196 in title 22. Stay contended that the trial court erroneously placed the burden on the state to demonstrate the legality of the warrantless arrest.

In the context of a constitutional challenge to the legality of warrantless search or seizure, the appellate court is recognized the state bears the burden to establish that the search or seizure was lawful. The burden lies with the state of suppression hearing because warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable under the state and federal constitutions.

But in this case, the question was who bears the burden when the lawfulness of a warrantless misdemeanor arrest is challenged under the statute. Section 106 of title 22 governance warrantless arrest strictly limits the circumstances in which a warrantless misdemeanor arrest is permitted. Without one of the three enumerated exceptions, a warrant must be obtained to arrest a person for a misdemeanor offense.

In this manner, section 106 operates much like a constitutional guarantee which creates a preference for judicial determination of probable cause. Because the section provides only limited exceptions authorizing a wireless misdemeanor arrest, the burden should be on the state to prove that a challenge arrest falls within a statutory exception. It was the state’s burden to prove compliance with statutorily mandated maintenance requirements for but breathalyzer. Therefore, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial court properly placed the burden on the state to justify the warrantless misdemeanor arrest, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

As a further preliminary matter, the appellate court had to determine whether the collective knowledge doctrine can be applied in the present case. The rule from to knowledge from one officer to another is known variously as the collective knowledge doctrine or the fellow officer rule. Generally stated, doctrine allows an officer to stop, arrest, or search a suspect in limited circumstances, even if the officer does not have firsthand knowledge of all the facts that amount to risible suspicion or probable cause to justify the action. This principle divide derives from the recognition that law enforcement officers must be permitted to work collectively in the performance of their duties and act on directions and information given by one officer to another.

In the trial court proceedings, the parties and the trial court implicitly believed that as a general rule. The collective knowledge doctrine can apply in determining the validity arrest claim to be unlawful and statute. In the appeal, the state noted that the term circuit extended the application of the doctor to stops for misdemeanor offenses and argues that the trial court incorrectly apply the doctrine to the case at bar. However, as an alternative basis to uphold the court suppression of evidence, the defendant argued for the first time an appeal that the doctrine cannot apply to the statutory challenge at issue. He asserted that the collective knowledge doctrine is a product of constitutional challenges brought under the fourth amendment and states are free to impose greater restrictions on play’s conduct. He argued that the legislature elected to impose a greater restriction by the plain language of section 196. State constitutions may allow for greater rights than the federal Constitution allows, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.