Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Freedom Fighter | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Do you need a Tulsa criminal defense attorney? Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Stephen Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has been featured in several media outlets, including TV news. He has nearly two decades of experience as an attorney. He has handled a wide range of cases from misdemeanors to felonies. He also has extensive jury trial experience. Some of his jury trials and windows for murder.
The agents had plenty of time to seek a search warrant based on their aerial observation of the suspected marijuana the day before. This is entirely lawful for them to do. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found no reason for a warrantless search. When law enforcement has significant time to obtain a search warrant, then one should be obtained. State get no evidence of any emergency circumstances that would show it warrantless entry was necessary.
Because the officers’ entry was not lawful, any incriminating statements made by the defendant during this encounter were also obtained unlawfully. This included statements concerning his omission that marijuana was crying on his property. Additionally considering the totality of the circumstances once sent to search is not voluntary in the constitutional sense of the term. Therefore the agent search of the marijuana patch is not lawful. As a consequence, the fruits of the search must be suppressed.
The defendant also argued that he had response dictation a privacy in the marijuana patch is it was within the curtilage of the home. On appeal, the state maintained that the defendant’s consent renders the search and valid. He refused to discuss with a marijuana patch was sent within the curtilage. So, for the purposes of appeal, the area was within the curtilage. Issues raise an appeal by the defendant and supported by the legal authority which are not addressed by the state is responsible be taking this conceded.
Police may enter upon it areas of the residential property that are intended has public access points. For example, they may walk up the driveway or walkway to the front porch of the typical urban home in order to contact the occupant. This is because that is what the area is intended for. However, in the case at bar, the driveway which led to the defendant’s rule home was blocked by a gate. This clearly indicated that no and invited visitors are allowed the on that point.
Not only did the officers cross that barrier, but they continue to approach until they were between two residential structures. This was done for the sole purpose of obtaining consent to search. There were numerous cases where entry into the curtilage of role premises was illegal. As a consequence evidence obtained from the vantage point should have been suppressed for the driveway was blocked by close gate and house was not visible from the roadway.
In 1989, U. S. Supreme Court held that a police officer’s observation of the residential greenhouse interior is not a search requiring a warrant. The officer observed the interior of the greenhouse from a helicopter four hundred feet in the air. Oklahoma’s Constitution has an article that is similar to the fourth amendment. As a consequence, the Oakland Court of Criminal Appeals interprets the state constitution in a similar way is the U. S. Supreme Court.
The dissenting opinion said that it wasn’t proper to assume that the area to be searched was within the curtilage of the defendant’s home. Without showing in areas closely tied to the sea of the home, Mary cannot be deemed to be part of its curtilage. If this area is not a curtilage it must be considered within the open fields doctrine. Additionally, since open fields to not fall into the protections afforded to persons, houses, papers, and effects, the fourth amendment finds no protection from minor warrantless intrusions on such property.
United States Supreme Court explained that the fourth amendment protection does not extend to open fields. This rule provides that an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted outdoors in fields except in the area mainly surrounding the home. The test for legitimacy is not whether an individual chooses to conceal private activity. Instead, the determination is whether the government’s intrusion and fringes on the personal societal values protected by the fourth amendment.
Even though this is referred to the open fields doctrine, the fields do not have to be open or even feels. The U. S. Supreme Court has said that intrusion is a trespass at common-law but does not apply to governmental intrusion. The rationale is that an individual does not have a legitimate expectation open fields will remain free from warrantless intrusion by government officers. When the primary factors in determining whether not something is within the curtilage of the home is whether the area harbors an intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home in the privacy is a life.
If you’ve been charged with a crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. He will investigate whether or not a search of your home or property or car was legal. He may be able to get evidence against them thrown out in the case dismissed. The U. S. Supreme Court has concluded that the question the curtilage should be resolved with particular reference to four factors. The first is the proximity the area claimed to be a curtilage within an enclosure surrounding the home. Secondly, the courts look at the nature of the uses to which the areas put. Thirdly the courts in seven steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by passing people.
The test whether not consent is voluntary is what is to look at the totality of circumstances. The state has the burden of proof that the consent was freely voluntarily given.
If you’re looking for an excellent criminal defense, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free.