Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Drug Charges | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with a crime and you are looking for a hard-hitting attorney, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience serving people with legal needs.

In one case a judge suppressed evidence concerning narcotics. A Highway Patrol trooper was the sole and this presented at the hearing. At the hearing, he described his training and education has to narcotics interdiction and certified drug canine handling. He also testified that his truck dog was certified.

There were 2016 the troopers stopped the tractor and by the defendant on Interstate 40. The defendant was stopped for speeding. He was driving 73 miles per hour in a 70 mile per hour zone. The trooper told the defendant that he would just write him a warning. The trooper knows that the defendant’s hand was shaking that he had two large dogs inside of his truck.

During a conversation with the defendant, the defendant said he was from the West Coast was driving to Memphis to see a woman. Trooper recognized the way West Coast is a hotbed for narcotics. When the trooper asked about the defendant destination, strong pause before saying he was going to Memphis to see the woman. The pause sign of deception.

The troopers trying to pay attention to by language, and based upon his training experience he determined that the defendant was exhibiting signs of nervousness. The trooper discovered that the license of the defendant was suspended was not valid. Based on other physical ops relations that the defendant was high on methamphetamine. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale advises people to never talk to police. Talking to the police can never help you. It can only hurt you.

The trooper next asked the defendant if he is transporting anything illegal. The defendant did not respond. Instead he just stared at his truck. The trooper took this has another sign of nervousness on defendant’s part. The trip within informed the defendant that he was going to have a K-9 unit around the truck. The defendant said that there were crumbles of marijuana all over his truck. The trip within informed the defendant the based on the information he now have probable cause to search the truck intent to search the vehicle. This is just another good example of how talking to an officer can hurt you, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

The trooper handcuffed the defendant and asked whether he had any large qualities of marijuana in the truck. Defendant replied they had a couple pounds behind a seat. Then he searched the truck and found numerous bags of marijuana. The trooper knowledge that we had written a warning to the defendant, he did not tell the defendant it was free to go. Instead the trooper told the defendant that he cannot drive away.

When the defense attorneys suggested that the defendant said the patrol unit because you know the place to go, the trooper replied that he could stepped out and hung out on the shoulder. The trooper further knowledge that he was starting to talk to the defendant about the things a few seconds after telling the defendant they cannot drive away.

The defense motion to suppress alleged that the trooper unlawfully prolong the traffic stop of the original suspicion be on the time needed to address the traffic violation that was the basis of the stop in the first place. The thing also argued there was no consensual encounter leading to the search. Thirdly, he argued that the trooper stated reliance upon his nervousness is not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. He argued that there is this alone is not sufficient to war prolonging a traffic stop to investigate proceed criminal activity. Additionally, he reason that the video the traffic stop did not show extreme nervousness as the trooper testified to. Lastly though the other factors cited by the trooper gave rise to reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances to prolong the traffic stop for further investigation after writing the warning.

When reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence based on a illegal search and seizure, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals will defer to the trial court’s finding of facts was they are not supported by competent evidence and are therefore clearly erroneous. The trial court’s legal conclusions are those facts de novo. The state argued that the trooper had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances to can continue questioning the defendant after he and the defendant a warning and told him that he cannot drive. State also argued that the trooper engaged in a consensual encounter with the defendant and that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies the same truck evidence in this case.

People have the right about the US and state constitutions to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. A traffic stop is a seizure under the fourth amendment. Scope and duration of such a seizure is related to the stop must last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the stop purpose. At the link investigative detention gives me on the time necessary to reason with the reason for the stop, the fourth amendment requires reasonable suspicion that the person stop is committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

In this case, the trooper witnessed traffic violation by the defendant. Whether not the stop is lawful is not at issue. The trooper’s assistant stopped the vehicle was reasonable. This is so regardless of the officer subjective motives for the stop. Subjective intentions don’t play a role in ordinary probable cause fourth amendment analysis. However just because the stop for speeding was lawful, that does not mean that the duration of the stop is lawful. An officer stopped the scene the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution shield against unreasonable seizures.