This content was written for Cale Law office

If you’ve been charged with a crime, you need a lawyer with experience. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation at the Cale law office is free. Ask about your free defense strategy plan.

The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence of dominion and control necessary for constructive possession to the extent that any right rational trier of fact could find the owner reasonable doubt that the defendant act dominion and control over the paraphernalia. Officers had a room the motel under surveillance. He watched as several people left the room, got to a car, and pulled on the parking lot.

The officer stopped the car within a block. All the passengers were asked for identification. The defendant originally get a false name. Officers quickly discovered that his true name, and that of he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. He was arrested in the ward and crack cocaine was found in his pockets. He was booked into the Payne County Jail.

The defendant claimed that the stop and initial seizure were illegal, and that as a consequence, the evidence obtained by the leader booking search should have been suppressed. When the officer made the vehicle stop, he knew the car was filled with people who just left the motel room and were under surveillance. He also knew the officers were in the process of getting a warrant to search the room. He stopped the car within a block after it left the hotel. The officer said he believed it was a violation of a Stillwater municipal ordinance for backseat passengers to sit on other passengers lapse, and that it might’ve also violated a stance to state statute because the lab passengers might have obstructed the driver’s rear vision.

He said that he stopped the car because it might’ve been overcrowded. The appeals court said that either the the support ordinance stored state statute justified this stop, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The ordinance prohibits writing on a portion of a vehicle not designed or intended for passengers. State statute prohibits more than three persons from riding in the front seat, passenger obstruction of the drivers you to the front or sides of the vehicle, and interference with the driver’s ability to control the driving mechanism. The defendant claimed that the stop was illegal, and the state to not suggest otherwise. The magistrate concluded that the stop was illegal, found that the defendant had standing to contestant and ruled that the arrest warrant provided in a separate intervening circumstances which justify the search.

The defendant claimed that his warrantless seizure require suppression of the evidence found during the subsequent booking search. The magistrate correctly concluded that the defendant could contestant illegal stop which resulted in seizure of his person. Generally, evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment must be excluded. However, the United States Supreme Court has explicitly written just did a but for tests which require automatic exclusion of evidence that would not come to light but for the illegal actions the police. For example, evidence may be admissible where was discovered through an independent source, or where intervening circumstances break the connection between the illegal government conduct and discovery of the evidence.

In making such determination, a reviewing court must consider 1) the proximity in time between the illegal seizure and the discovery of the evidence; 2) any intervening circumstances; and 3) the purpose and flagrant sea of official misconduct. The last factor must be shown by evidence that place actions were purpose fully investigatory in nature, that an arrest was obviously illegal, and that the arresting officer was aware of the rest of the illegal. The question in this case is whether the officers could arrest the defendant on a valid outstanding warrant after the illegal stop. The appeals court has previously held that the illegality of an original stop does not preclude an otherwise valid second arrest. For example, the court held that illegally impounding the defendant’s car constitute illegal seizure. However, the car was later search pursuant to the search warrant obtained after the illegal impalement and based on evidence gathered independently from the illegal seizure. Under the circumstances, the search of the car was not tainted by the illegal seizure. Thus, the evidence was admissible, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

Other jurisdictions have held that where the police have a good faith basis for an illegal stop, and discover an outstanding warrant for the person during the course of that stop in seizure, police may arrest the person on the warrant and he material found during a search subsequent to that arrest will be admissible. One such case is from Alaska. There, and initial valid traffic stop evolved into an investigative stop when the officers discovered the driver was drunk. Officers told the man that it was free to go, but asked for his name the driver asked him to remove property from his truck. Officers became suspicious when the man gave an apparently false name, and cease and handcuffed him until he gave his real name. This information led to the discovery of outstanding warrants. Police arrested the man on the warrants, and found out that he was carrying methamphetamine during a search incident to the arrest.

The appellate court held that assuming the original seizure was illegal, the pre-existing arrest warrants sufficiently set apart the connection between the and initial investigative stop in the later discovery of methamphetamine. Any other result would be contrary to the purpose of the exclusionary rule, the appellate court held. Because the arrest is lawful, a search incident to arrest is also lawful.

Here are some problems that could result in exclusionary rule were to apply. For example, if the police illegally detained the suspect and discover arrest warrants, maybe release the suspect to the rearrest him and conduct a legal search? If not, he is forever immune from a consequence of a search incident to a subsequent arrest under those same warrants. If so, when can they rearrest him? After he steps outside the door the police station, a block away, or the same day?