Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Alcohol Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with DUI, you need aggressive legal reputation. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense.

The law considers reckless driving with a person driving a motor vehicle is doing so the careless want to manner without regard for the safety of persons or property. It was convicted of reckless driving chili punished upon first conviction by 5 to 90 days in jail or fine of up to $100. The second conviction, the punishment is today’s to six months in jail or a fine of hundred $50-$1000. Prosecutors charged the defendant with aggravated assault battery upon a police officer. The jury convicted him of a lesser offense of assault battery upon a place officer.

The jury set punishment six months in the county jail the fine of $500. The defendant appealed. Here’s a summary the facts of the case. Highway Patrol trooper stopped the defendant for speeding at 65 miles per hour. Defendant pulled over on the side highway. After the trooper approached the car, the defendant asked why been stopped and said that under the way conditions there’s no way he could been speeding. Defendant did not cooperate refuse to come in the patrol into the patrol car.

The trooper asked for assistance from a civilian had been riding in the patrol car with the with him. The spelling was reluctant to get involved but did in the patrolman of his nightstick. The defendant advanced with clenched fist and the patrolman raised his nightstick. The defendant struck the patrolman in the head, rendering him momentarily unconscious. The patrolman regained consciousness he found the civilian in the struggle with the defendant. At this time, patrol pulled out his revolver about the situation the control. He was still to confuse condition and later acquired treatment at the hospital. The patrolman spent two days in the hospital because the injury.

The trooper testified that he was trained to use a radar device the use the clock the defendant’s speed. He testified that the writer device can be calibrated by using a tuning fork or by ground reference using a speedometer. Someone calibrated the writer device in the day in question. Defendant testified they struck the patrolman only an attempt to prevent harm to his person in the belief that the patrolman was going to strike without provocation. The defendant argued on appeal that the state failed to establish proof of the accuracy and reliability the writer device. Additionally, he argued that the state failed to properly maintain the operations of the device.

Consequently, the defendant argued the evidence came to use the writer device and should not been admitted in evidence. Additionally, he said the offense has not committed the presence of the officer. The defendant based his argument on various cases that found the evidence lacked sufficient reliability which to base a conviction. The present case the trooper testified it to the reliability the use of the device in question for a period of six months during which the reader detector venues. Additionally, the trooper testified they had previously calibrated a radar device with a tuning fork in the ground reference using a speedometer.

The question of the accuracy of the test in the grounds that there was insufficient showing of the accuracy of these testing devices. However, the evidence standard is to show that the defendant was guilty of speeding. Instead was introduced to show that the offense was committed by the defendant in the presence of the trooper. The trooper was operating a radar device compliance with proper procedures of this device was known to him to be accurate. Constitute offensive presence of an officer, the officer must be seat Stephen have knowledge of such offense being committed. This perception of knowledge was furnished by the radar device.

A police officer may arrest a person for any moving traffic violation which the arresting officer or another police officer in a century or electronic reception. This includes reliable speed measuring devices. The statute allows an officer rely on certain mechanical devices to expand his sensory perception. While accuracy of such a device may be determinative the defendant’s guilt or innocence, it does not affect the validity of his arrest. Therefore it is the pain the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of the evidence was probably admitted that the offense was committed the presence of the officer.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is held that a statute is presumed to be valid and constitutional tool proved otherwise, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The statute at issue expressly sets of the drawings in excess of 35 miles per hour is prohibited. Usually, the portion of statue that the child refers to the termination of the statute. The statute was enacted by the state legislature. Although may be question is whether the statute may terminate, there is no question that statute is validly enforced. The previous case, the court indicated that an invalid clause or paragraph in an otherwise valid statute will not invalidate the whole act. Is also well-settled the statute may for constitutional of the reasons, be in part valid in part invalid. If the invalid portion can be eliminated without destroying or appearing a valid portion, the portion of this valid will be upheld the invalid portion disregarded.

If you’ve been charged with a crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. The first thing that attorney Cale will try to do is get the case dismissed. He does this by filing various motions. One of the things his files is a motion to quash. This is a way to get the charge dismissed because the rescue did not properly file it. The other thing that he will file is a discovery motion. This forces the state to turn over evidence that has against the defendant. It also compels the prosecution to turn over favorable evidence.