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

Are you looking for a lawyer who deals with drug charges? Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with the Cale law office. Attorney Cale has nearly two decades of experience. His practice focuses on criminal defense.

The DAs office charged the defendant with trafficking and ecstasy and possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. The defendant appealed his conviction. Here’s a summary of the case. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge violated his fourth amendment right to be free from the original searches. He argued that this happened when the judge amended evidence found during the search of the passenger compartment of his car.

The defendant claimed that the trial court mistakenly denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his car. Please conducted a warrantless search of his car after he was arrested. Officers handcuffed him and removed him from the vehicle and placed them in the patrol car. Police justify the search said it was a search incident to the defendant’s arrest. However, this was illegal.

In 2009, the U. S. Supreme Court reviewed a search incident to arrest after a traffic stop. The high court determined that the search violated the fourth amendment, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The court held a place or authorized to search the vehicle incident to arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time the search. Because officers have various means of ensuring the safety rest of vehicle occupants, is not cause for a search.

The law did not support an argument for the search was justified because officers believe that might find relevant evidence connected to the rest. Police stopped the defendant for traffic violations. Nothing the record suggested that the officers had a basis to support any of the crime of the time that began the search. Supreme Court held that pleas are justified in a search incident to a lawful arrest when it’s reasonable to plea that there is evidence relevant to the crime in the vehicle. When the driver of the car is arrested for a traffic violation, there is no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.

The state has the burden to show this warrantless search falls within a specific exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement. The state failed to meet this burden. The state suggested that the root arrest was a result of circumstances that developed after the fence arrest it argued that marijuana was in plain view before the search began justify the search. Our the record did not support his claim. There was no evidence to suggest marijuana was in plain view.

The officer testifies preliminary hearing the back of marijuana was in the console the search the car. He found that bag after he began the search. Testified at trial they believe there was a little console. The officers testified that they sell marijuana or have. To see for the search began. Therefore the plain view exception did not apply.

When also testified that when she has the passenger to get out, he saw a large amount of money in a person. He argued that this is held regular sometimes key money. The pastor had trouble speaking was breathing rapidly. Her hands were shaking she was extremely nervous. Stay success of this evidence along with other evidence that the search was illegal. However, the record did not support this claim.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals failed to believe that the search field within the good faith exception. The good faith exception applies only to searches conducted with a warrant. In this case, the search was warrantless. State also relied on the case to argue that the exclusionary rule does not apply here. There’s a difference between unlawful search is pursuant to a warrant in the fruits of an unlawful warrantless search. When determining whether not police illegally obtained evidence the question is whether the evidence came with the exploitation.

In this case, police seized evidence as a result of an unlawful search. The state argued that the police relied on law previous to the U. S. Supreme Court. This of this would allow the search of the vehicle under the circumstances. The prosecution suggested that’s unfair to apply current case law in this case.

Newly declared laws of constitutional criminal procedure are applied to criminal cases pending on direct appeal, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. This is true even when the new rule is clear and inconsistent with past case law. The case of Thompson new role when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the government. But a different way, with the result, does not dictate President existing the time of defendant’s conviction became final.

The prosecution argued that the revocation law here would have no deterrent effect. Can requirement, that the case must be applied to cases pending on direct appeal, this argument is not water. Additionally applying the new case will have an attorney fact. It will conform to law enforcement officers a change in the law. It also will serve as an example of explanation of the reasons law enforcement officers must about their vehicle search practice to conform to the law.

Lastly, the prosecution argued that pleas would have inevitably discovered the evidence during an inventory search of the car was impounded. Illegally obtained evidence may be admissible if the prosecution can be established by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately we been discovered by lawful means. Stay asserted without citation that police impounded the defendant’s car. It argued that the impoundment is lawful, then the later inventory search is lawful.

Lawful impoundment requires compliance with municipal ordinances governing pounded on private property. The record did not support the states claim. Evidence showed that officers lawfully impounded vehicle pursuant to the development is boards of the vehicle stopped on a public street. During the stop and search, the defendant’s car was parked on private property in a designated parking place. If the vehicle is not connected to a crime proposing a traffic hazard, but it’s illegal to impound it.