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

Have you been charged with possessing ecstasy? Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with the Cale law office. Attorney Stephen Cale focuses on criminal defense. His nearly two decades of legal experience.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with possession of methamphetamine and manufacturing to control drug. The jury sentenced him to 30 years in prison. The defendant appealed. His single issue is whether the warrantless search of his home by law enforcement violated his fourth amendment rights.

In June, the district attorney’s office received a tip that the defendant was making methamphetamine in his apartment. The defendant was a parolee and had sign rules and conditions of parole. When the conditions were that he would not break the city, State or federal law. An investigator several officers conducted a warrantless search of defense apartment after the tip.

They found marijuana, baggies, containers of ecstasy and syringes. A closet apartment had a combination lock on it. The defendant claimed that his did not belong to him. The defendant objected to the search. After his arrest, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence sees during the search of his apartment. The trial judge denied the motion. He said that the defendant consent to all searches as part of his parole.

To establish standing to contest the constitutionality of a search, a defendant must show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy. When officers asked him to commish the padlock, he said that he did know what it was. The defendant state is provided for they had no legitimate expectation of privacy the padlocked closet. Defendant also did not have a legitimate expedition privacy in the unoccupied adjoining apartment. The time the search for the apartment was vacant. Was no evidence that the defendant had any possessory interest in it.

The U. S. Supreme Court case, probation officer searched the probationer’s home without a warrant. This was the administrative regulation that allowed such searches where there was reasonable grounds to believe that the person possessed contraband. Court uphold the search. The reason that the supervision of the probationer presents special needs beyond normal law enforcement. In another case, law enforcement officials searched the probationer some pursuant to the search condition of his probation. They also have original suspicion he was involved in drug activity.

The probationer search condition required him to submit to searches that anytime with or without a search warrant. The defendant argued that the warrantless search was improper because it was for investigatory purposes rather than supervisory ones. The court upheld the search the abandoned the special-needs rationale. Instead, the court applied a traditional regional this inquiry.

The court looks to bouncing the degree to which the search intrudes on the individual’s privacy with a degree to which is needed to promote governmental interests. The court noted that the inherent nature probationer is that the probationers to not have absolute liberty to do whether citizens can do. Additionally, the defendant had been informed of the conditions for search. This further diminishes expectation of privacy. The government also had a legitimate interest in integrating probationers backed into the community.

The goal is also to reduce repeat offenses. When also has an original suspicion of a probationer is engaged in criminal activity, and the probationer does not have an expectation of privacy. In yet another U. S. Supreme Court case the issue is whether a conditional release can so diminish or eliminate a release probationers response dictation privacy. The court looked aware a suspicionless search by law enforcement officer with the defendant fourth amendment. With no individualized suspicion, please search the parolee had agreed to be subject to search and seizure by parole or other peace officers at any time day or night. The court upheld the search finding that the search was reasonable because it did not intrude upon his privacy.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale attacks the search and seizure of evidence from his clients. This is one way he can try to get a case dismissed. It’s very important to hire an attorney who focuses his practice on criminal defense.

The defendant claimed that even though he was parolee and expedition privacy in his home. He said that a warrantless search of his home violated his fourth amendment rights. The Court of Criminal Appeals do not buy that argument. And therefore affirmed the conviction.

In another case, prosecutors charged the defendant with distributing ecstasy. He was bound over for trial at a preliminary hearing. He later filed a motion to suppress on evidence rising out of the traffic stop of his car. The trial judge granted the motion to suppress, and the state appealed. Here’s a summary the case.

The trooper testified at the hearing with regard to narcotics interdiction and certified drug dog canine handling. The trooper also discussed his truck dog and certification as a whole is a team for drug detection. He said that he stopped the truck during by the defendant on Interstate 40. He stopped for speeding and asked for a driver’s license.

The trooper then directed the defendant to his patrol car where he would write him a warning. Trooper knows that the defense has was shaking they had two large dogs inside the truck. The defendant lied about what he was doing and made up a story., On appeal, the defendant argued that the trooper unlawfully prolong the traffic stop. He said he does not have a reasonable suspicion at the time needed to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that people can avoid arrest by simply obeying traffic laws. If you get pulled over for a traffic violation, this gives an officer an opportunity to delve into your activity. This can lead to you making admissions of a crime. But you should never talk to police. Talking to law enforcement cannot help you. It will only hurt you. So never talk to police.