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

If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, you need to call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. His practice focuses on criminal defense.

The defendant also argued that the officers diversionary tactic when executing a search warrant was unlawful. He argued that if they did the personal service requirement. In a prior case, the officer searched the residence with when the occupants were not home. They left to copy of the search warrant inside the residence on the table. The defense found the warrant after they came home and moved to suppress the evidence because they not been personally served.

The defendant’s in a case argued that because the statute made no provision as to what constitutes service, the court must apply a strict construction. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. The court held that when personal services possible the same should be made. The court held that when officers leave a search warrant in an unoccupied dwelling they do so lawfully.

The appellate court historically is required personal service only when officers executed the warrant found some person present on the premises to be searched. Officer search in an unoccupied residence violent related service requirements by failing to post a copy of the warrant on the door. Service of the warrant on a boy was in charge of the premises complied with the statute. Failed to serve a copy of the warrant on an employee in charge of the premises of the time and search rendered it illegal.

The survey teenager fell within the premises did not invalidate the search because the child was not in charge of the premises. The record clearly supported compliance with the statute. The defendant’s theory the search cannot of been in his absence. While ordering the law contemplates of some persons present in possession of the place to be searched, the word will be served. Before officer starts the search the must abide by the law.

The statute is mandatory requires the officer to serve a copy of the search warrant upon the person found in possession of the building. The purpose of personally serving the warrant is to lessen the likelihood that a person will resist the search, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. It also demonstrates that the officers are conducting the search under the authority of law.

When no one is present within the premises of the time of the search, this purpose is substantially diminished. Since the defendant was not present with a vehicle one of the searches, personal service was not an essential requirement of the lawful search. Personal service of the warrant on the person found in the premises at the time the search protects both officers and the occupants. It discourages resistance and informs those within the presence that the intrusion is under lawful authority.

However personal service the person is located elsewhere with a warrant is executed is not needed to ensure the reasonableness of it. It also does not protect the legitimate interest in the parties affected. Of such service safeguard the liberty and property interest of persons affected by search warrant on their property. These laws provide for publicly filed inventory the search. It also provides for delivering this inventory to the person’s property was ceased. That person has a right to a judicial hearing on the issue of the warrant and to restore the property. Officers who maliciously get wards without probable cause face criminal sanctions.

The defendant argued that the officer’s efforts to divert him from the scene of the search amount to official misconduct. He said their actions purposefully evaded the duty to serve the warrant on him personally. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. The previously held that an officer’s deception practice against the defendant did not violate the Constitution. The U. S. Supreme Court recognized that the use of deception by law enforcement officials in a criminal investigation is not in itself improper. In a similar vein, the law does not require police to always still truthfully with the targets of their investigation.

Statements made to police in an attorney’s office were admissible because police deceived defendant during the interview. Officers lawfully obtained a confession by falsely telling the defendant’s cousin had already confessed. The previous case three deputies with search warrant devised a plan for the first officer to get invited to the defendant’s home. He pretended it was going to buy drugs. The purpose of the scheme was to locate the hiding place of the drugs.

The first officer knocked on the door and the wife answered. Instead of serving a search warrant at the time, the officer expressed an interest in buying drugs. The wife first denied having drugs to sell. After the officer told the woman that a certain person sent him to buy the drugs, she gave them to him. The officer followed the woman through the house to the back door. They then went outside. Two other officers immediately join the other officer in the yard. When the wife appeared from the garage with a bag of drugs, the first officer served her with a search warrant. He searched the garage and located other drugs hidden inside. The defendant later told officers that the drugs belonged to him, not his wife.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held in the previous case that officers could probably affect personal service of the search warrant by handing it to the defendant’s wife after gaining their initial entry by deceiving her. The court cited numerous prior cases where officers use deception to obtain evidence. The court said the question of whether the officers can use this type of fabrication to obtain evidence has long been settled.

The defendant’s argument for strict role construction of personal service is ironic. Law enforcement officers have been criticized for needlessly entering into confrontations with occupants of the house during the service of a search warrant. In this case, they avoided that. There are foreseeable dangers in serving a search warrant. The diversionary tactic used by officers, in this case, gives a piece during the search. It did not result in violating the defendant’s rights.

Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 if you’ve been charged with a drug crime. Attorney Cale will look for a way to get the charge dismissed. It’s important that you call him right away.