Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Drug Case Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’re looking for aggressive legal representation in your criminal case, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale Law Office is free. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. His practice focuses on criminal defense.
The classic role statutory construction is that statutes are to be construed to determine the intent of the legislature. It’s also a function of statutory construction to reconcile provisions and render them consistent in giving intelligent effect to each. If there’s a conflict between very statutes apply to the same situation, the more specific of the two governance. When statutes are specifically designed by the legislature to treat a given situation, then tension be effectuated. There is a strong presumption against implied repeals.
One can see that in creating the trafficking laws, the lawmakers saw fit to modify another statute to plaintiff its intention of those accused of drug trafficking. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that significant that when considering the subject of bail, the legislature did not consider the agent past criminal history of the offender. There is a statutory rule of construction that says the mention of one thing the statute implies the exclusion of another.
For the second argument on appeal, the defendant contended that the stop and arrest were pretextual in the scheme rendering the later search and seizure of his vehicle unconstitutional. The trooper involved in the stop is same trooper involved in a federal court case. The federal district judge concluded the stop of that defendant’s car was not an honest traffic enforcement. Instead, it was pretextual. Based on this, the defendant claims the stop of his car for failure to do is lights was pretextual. Therefore the evidence gathered is result search should been suppressed.
At the trial court level, the state contended that the defendant waived his right to contest the search by pleading guilty, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The appellate court has consistently held that weren’t appeals taken by the accused from a judgment from a plea of guilty, the appeal will ordinarily present only questions to go to the voluntary character the plea. Nothing else can be brought up in the appeal. In this case he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty.
A proper plea of guilty forecloses the right to object to the manner in which the defendant was arrested or how evidence was obtained against him. When the first things that Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale tries to do is get the case dismissed. He does this by filing various motions. The first is a discovery motion. This forces the prosecution to turn over evidence that has against the person. This includes evidence that will be favorable to him or her.
For aggressive criminal defense, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Stephen Cale also develops a free defense strategy plan document that is custom-made for your case. He focuses his practice on criminal defense.
The trooper testified that he stopped the defendant because he failed to them as headlights. This is a traffic crime in Oklahoma. By definition a protects. Lacks probable cause. Under the circumstances would be illegal. The officer’s articulate reason for stopping the car is a traffic violation committed in his presence. The traffic violation provides probable cause for the initial stop. Despite this, the defendant claimed that the stop was subversive.
A traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment of the stop is based on observed traffic violation. Is also valid if the police officer has an original articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring. For fourth amendment purposes, and doesn’t matter whether the stop is ordinary routine according to general practice of the police department. It also doesn’t matter if the officer may have had other subjective reasons for stopping the vehicle. So question appeal is whether this particular officer had reasonable suspicion that this particular motors violated any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations.
There’s nothing the record indicating that the officer was to anything some surf. The trooper testified that he stopped the van intend to give a warning for failure to dim his lights. He further testified that although there been a manual dealing with drug interdiction, that manual was nothing more than a few sheets of paper put together by someone had not made a drug arrest. That person was on a teaching circuit. Trooper testified that he did not have a copy of the manual and never had. Additionally, he did not use a because it was not endorsed by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. The defendant presenting nothing a hearing to refute the trooper’s testimony.
After the trooper stopped the van, he noticed a strong smell of marijuana. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is held that when officers are the where they the right to be detected the distinct odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband. This justifies the search of the vehicle. You can avoid getting stopped by a bank traffic laws. This will help you not arrested.
Testimony related to the crime is not obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizures. Instead, it resulted from observations made by police officer observed the defendant violating a traffic law requiring lights. Also, officers to not, drug dog and. He will her to the presence of marijuana. This provided even more probable cause to search the van. Defendant also contended that the trial court found probably advised him of the nature of the charges. The trial court used a plea of guilty summary of facts form. The form shows that the defendant was informed of the charges against him. It also showed the range punishment for each count. Additionally, the form shows they had never been treated for mental illness. His attorney and a reasonably his client was not mentally competent are capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him.