This content was written for Cale Law Office

Anyone who has been charged with a crime needs aggressive legal representation. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. You also get a complimentary defense strategy plan to take with you.

This is a summary of the case of State vs. Goins, 2004 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals case. Goins was charged with trafficking in illegal drugs, that be a marijuana. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence alleging that the search of his vehicle violated the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The judge ruled that the evidence must be suppressed because the search violated the fourth amendment. The state appealed. Here are the facts.

Go once was driving a motor home and was stopped by a Highway Patrol trooper for following too closely. The trooper issued go once a warning and told to one’s that that’s all he needed. Goins began to get out of the trip his car when the trooper asked going said he could ask him something else before he left. Goins replied that he could. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale says that any time you are free to go, then leave. Do not continue to talk to an officer. Talking to an officer cannot help you. Take a look at the top 10 reasons not to talk to police.

The trooper asked Goins if he was carrying any drugs, guns, or large amounts of money or anything illegal in the motorhome. Goins was replied that he was not. The trooper the best of it search the vehicle. Goins consented. Trooper search the motorhome and discovered about 300 pounds of marijuana.

In suppressing evidence, the trial court relied on McGaughey vs. State and United States vs. McSwain. The judge to suppress the evidence stated that when the purpose. Is terminated than any further search request to search is illegal. The state argued that the trial court’s reliance on those cases was was placed in ruling was error.

The trial court judge not real on the validity of the stop. Goins and audits her that the initial stop was invalid. The trial court’s decision was based on abuse of discretion standard. But standards to defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect the facts presented, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

The Oklahoma court criminal appeals 732 cases relied on by the trial court are based on specific pack situations distinguishable from the facts and Goins case. In the guy he case, the appellate court held that once an officer realizes that his reason for traffic stop is mistaken, that any further detention violates the fourth amendment without any other specific circumstances. The case at hand, because he was stopped because the trooper cannot seize to lights. However once a stop was manager for saw that the tellers were working. The court ruled that the trooper should if Tony the stop. In McSwain, a Highway Patrol trooper stopped the vehicle because it cannot read the expiration date of the temporary registration sticker in the room window. Once a vehicle stop, the trip could see that the registration was valid. That instance the true press for consent to search which was given. Cocaine was discovered of the vehicle. The court simplifies cases of the want to trooper suppress the vehicle observed that there was no violation, the purpose of stop was satisfied. Therefore the actions of the trooper and extending the traffic stop to ask fortification, driver’s license, and so forth exceeded the limits a lawful investigation attention of violating the fourth amendment.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held in this case that those two situations support police actions after initial stop is concluded. Leaving the tension for for the question gone that related to initial stop is permissible to circumstances first, the officer made it to the driver for questioning and related to the stop of his an objectively reasonable and article suspicion that illegal activity has occurred or is occurring. Second for the questioning of related to the stop is permissible the initial detention has become a consensual encounter.

In the case of the nine states vs. habitat, the officer stopped the vehicle for weaving across the shoulder line the center line of the lane of travel. And stop, and Produce license and no insurance revocation. He claimed to be buying the car from someone else. The day began did not match the rest a car owner. Computer checks also showed how to catch driver’s license had been suspended. Because the passengers told a consistent source mother travel destinations. You can’t deny that there were in illegal substances the car, a drug that was called a large quality of methamphetamine was found.

The court found that the officers formed in an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion of illegal activity to support the extension of the traffic stop. The court reasoned that because the ulcer had asked about guns and drugs before returning the driver’s license, stop must been supported by the reasonable suspicion. The court found that the ulcer suspicion was probably based on the driver had no proof that he was the car owner in the proof that he was authorized operate vehicle. Additionally, the driver failed to stop probably. Further after this time the pastors repeatedly moved back and forth and leaned over. In that instance, the totality of the circumstances supported further detention.

Prior to the Goins case the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had not published case of a second exception of the driver’s voluntary consent to an extension of the traffic stop. So, look to other cases for guidance. The 10th circuit Court of Appeals held in 1996. That court held that a traffic stop may become a consensual encounter Tulsa returns to the the driver and return to licensor a sufficient asked questions without further constraining the driver by an overbearing show of authority. In that case in Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper stopped the vehicle for speeding. After running a warning and check the validity of the drivers license and registration, the ulcer returned driver’s documents to him and told him he was ready to go. As the defendant attorney to the patrol car, the officer inquired if they could ask a few questions. The terms of the the can. The ulcer asked about truck travel and whether there is any illegal substances in the car. The driver said that the wasn’t unconsented search the car. The house for that he was fishing. A later search revealed 65 pounds of super during, which is a precursor to the manufacture methamphetamine.