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

Have you been charged with possession of ecstasy? 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 as a lawyer. His practice focuses on criminal defense.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with possession of drug paraphernalia and trafficking in illegal drugs – marijuana. The defendant filed a motion to quash, suppress, and dismissed. The judge held a preliminary hearing. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is twofold. First, the judge will determine whether not a crime was committed. Secondly, the judge will determine whether not there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the judge denied the motion to suppress and dismiss. The state polymers charge of distribution with intent. Again, the defendant filed the same motion. This time, the judge granted the defendant’s motion. However, it did not dismiss the case. The state appealed.

On appeal, the state argued that the defendant did not have standing to challenge the search of the van. It argued that he was not authorized to drive the van. The appellate court did not look at the issue of standing. Instead, the state claimed that because the defendant is not listed as an authorized driver in the rental contract, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the context of the van. The court looked at a U. S. Supreme Court case.

The defendant must ensure that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched. He also showed that this expectation is reasonable. That means that one has a source outside the fourth amendment hereby reference to his concepts a real and personal property or to understanding that is recognized and permitted by society. The state argued that the defendant was committing a felony or unauthorized use of a vehicle. The appellate court disagreed.

The record indicated only that the defendant was not the named renter of the van. Neither was he listed as an authorized driver. But the van was not reported stolen. The only evidence regarding whether the person is to the rental contract to the defendant authority drive the van was a statement in the rental agreement. Therefore, the question was whether the driver of a rental vehicle not listed in the contract is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the vehicle.

The U. S. Supreme Court considered whether a driver who bought a car at a fourth amendment right to privacy in the car. The high court found that where the defendant offers sufficient evidence indicating that he has permission to use the vehicle, the defendant plainly has an original expectation of privacy in the vehicle. The court also concluded that because the defendant had produced registration bearing the name of the defendant, then he had a sufficient expectation of privacy.

In this case, driver was on the rental agreement. The driver’s girlfriend let him borrow the car. That court focused on whether the car rental contract allowed the renter to allow others to drive the vehicle. The court then concluded in the circumstances that case the society would recognize that the defendant had a response dictation a privacy in the use of his girlfriend’s rental car. This was so even though he was not listed as the authorized driver of the rental agreement.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale tries to get a case dismissed based on police wrongfully obtaining evidence. Search and seizure is one most heavily litigated issues and criminal defense. Attorney Cale has successfully had cases against his client’s dismissed. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the defendant had a reasonable asked dictation a privacy in the contents the van. Even though he was not listed on the rental agreement for the van, he told officers that the person listed on the Contra gave him permission to drive it. The record contained no evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the real agency confirmed that the van had not been reported stolen. Under these circumstances, the defendant has a right to challenge the search of the van. The search led to the discovery marijuana.

State also argued that the district court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to suppress. The prosecution argued that because of the stop the van, the later search or reasonable and proper. The appellate court did look to see whether or not the district court abused its discretion. The officer’s original stop was a valid traffic stop. The officer observed that the van was following too closely to another vehicle. He also said he crossed over the fog line onto the shoulder. The valid traffic stop in and however when the defendant gave the officer warning they had written up for him. the defendant to be careful and gave his driver’s license back.

In 2004, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the question of when an officer may continue to question the person originally detained for a traffic stop. It held that an officer can continue to question the driver after valid traffic stop is concluded into specific instances. First, the officer may detain the driver for questioning of related to initial stop if he is an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion of illegal activity. Secondly, the officer may proceed further questioning and related to initial stop if the initial detention has become a consensual encounter.

The Supreme Court has recognized that the issue of whether a detainee officer has an adequate basis for detaining an individual is based on the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the traffic stop was over the defendant exited the Highway Patrol vehicle. The trooper asked the defendant with mine answering a few more questions. When the defendant got back into the patrol car, a consensual encounter began. During this encounter, the defendant voluntarily answered the trooper’s questions about whether he had any weapons or anything illegal the van.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that he should never talk to law enforcement. With police talk to you, they are trying to fish for information that will allow them to arrest you. You cannot help yourself by talking to police. Doing this will only hurt you.