Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Case Dismissed | Call Now
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale is free. Attorney Cale will also develop a free defense strategy plan document for you. This will outline the criminal justice system and give you a guidepost for the work that attorney Cale will do for you.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. Attorney Cale will work hard to get you the best possible result. He is well worth the money. Give him a call today at 918-277-4800.
Prosecutors charged the defendant was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The fence filed a motion suppress. Rogers County district judge did not rule to most of the time it took the matter under advisement. Later, the judge granted the motion to suppress. The district attorney’s office appealed. Here are the facts of the case.
A woman called the police to report that she saw a woman at a mobile home park who appeared to be intoxicated. The woman got into a truck and started driving. The caller said that she saw the woman walked into a post before she into the car. The woman had been swaying and having a hard type keeping our eyes open. The caller said that the woman was rolling some of their hands could be drugs.
An officer located in the truck and stopped at based on the information he received from the dispatcher. He did not see the driver of the black truck commit the traffic violations. The defendant argued in the motion suppress hearing that the evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree because the stop was unlawful. The defendant also argued that the stop filing a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
State and federal Constitution security the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Over the fourth amendment protections extent to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles the fall short of traditional arrest, the police are allowed to conduct brief investigative stops at the officer processes reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot. Reasonable suspicion for investigative stop may be based on information supplied by another person, not solely upon an officer’s personal observation, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.
Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | DUI Case Dismissed
The judge’s decision to grant the motion suppress was made a previous Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals case. In that case, an officer who observed no traffic violation stopped the vehicle based on the tip of the anonymous caller. The caller said that the person operating the car was drinking beer while driving. The appellate court found that the seizure was unconstitutional because the informant was anonymous common law enforcement official said no means of assessing his or her reliability was no threat of criminal repercussion in case a false accusation. Additionally, the informant provided only to find information including nothing is officially corroborate the allegation of criminal activity. So, because he anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicators of reliability to justify the initial stop, the deputy to not have a basis for suspecting criminal activity. everyone needs the best Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney.
After the court’s ruling, the U. S. Supreme Court addressed a similar circumstance. In that case, a police officer conducted an investigative stop of the car based on a 911 call from anonymous citizen. The U. S. Supreme Court found that the stop comply with the fourth amendment because under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver was intoxicated. Several factors contribute to this conclusion. First, the caller gave sufficient details to claim eyewitness knowledge of the alleged dangerous driving. Secondly, the timeline within support the conclusion that the report was may contemporaneously with the observe criminal conduct. Third, the caller’s use of the 911 emergency system provided some safeguards against the making of a false report. And lastly, the behavior but reportedly observed by the caller provide a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. Call the best Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney.
Circumstances supported the conclusion that the best. In this case, was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity are more compelling than those set forth in the Supreme Court case. As in the case, the caller in this case gave sufficient details to claim eyewitness knowledge. Behavior the caller observed the report provided original suspicion that the defendant was driving while intoxicated. Additionally, the timeline of events supports the conclusion that the report was made contemporaneously with the observe criminal conduct. The only did the caller report the defendants to illustrate driving shortly after the driver got into her car, the caller followed the defendant issue driven point her out to the police officer.
Lastly, the caller was not anonymous. She the dispatcher name and telephone number described vehicle as well as the defendant’s vehicle. The caller then called the vehicle and made eye contact with the police officer when he located the car. The original suspicion asserts justify his stop is dependent upon both the content and the information possessed by the police officer in his degree reliability. Under the totality of circumstances, with her sufficient indicators of reliability in this case to provide an officer with reasonable suspicion that the driver cars driving drunk. The circumstances justify the investment of stop. You need the best Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney.
The dissenting opinion said that the trial court made erroneous findings of fact in reaching its conclusion. A foundational principle validity of Supreme Court cases discussing Terry-type stops is that these cases must be decided on a case-by-case basis. This is done by examining the totality of the circumstances, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. This means looking at the whole picture to determine whether an officer has reasonable suspicion assert justify the stop. The totality of the circumstances includes the source of information used to justify the stop in the degree probably reliability of the information. For aggressive legal representation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.