<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/hmonYT-rJ9Y?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for a lawyer who is aggressive and likes to fight, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. You can set up your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale aggressively represents his clients. He’s always looking for a way to get a charge dismissed, or to minimize its impact.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale is an aggressive trial attorney. However, many times he can get a case dismissed without having to go to trial. Attorney Cale has nearly 20 years of experience representing people with legal needs. He is focused on criminal defense and asset forfeiture, which is often tied to a criminal charge. So if you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 to set up your free initial consultation.

2005 case Amanda Mershon was convicted of some drug charges was is to 15 years in prison on appeal he argued that evidence should have been suppressed because it was illegally obtained through an unlawful search and stop.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and ordered it to be dismissed here are the facts of the case. Around noon in the middle of March 2005, police officers from Tulsa were preparing to excuse search warrant on the defendant’s residence. An officer was not part of the search warrant being was taking out the defendant’s residence. He knows the defendant another man leave in a car. So place officer radioed for other officers to follow defendant.

The officer who was following the defendant stopped him, noting that neither the defendant nor his passenger was wearing seatbelts. The officer asked the defendant’s name and address. When that happened, the defendant gave him an incorrect address became agitated. The officer asked the defendant annexes car walked the back of the police vehicle, where he was handcuffed for the officer safety. About 10 to 15 minutes had passed, and that officers called to assist with the search of the defendant’s house. Another officer stayed by.

At the house, please exiting the search warrant found a large amount of methamphetamine about 20 pounds of marijuana in a safe and the defendant’s bedroom. Also, the safe was cash, scales, and five boxes of baggies. After the defendant was given his Miranda rights, the defendant admitted to the boys they been selling drugs for about six months. He also said that he sold about four pounds of methamphetamine and 20 pounds of marijuana a week. The defendant argued that his potential for the traffic stop was illegal because the last longer than what was necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. He asserts that because his arrest was illegal as a result of the lengthy detention. Therefore, as a result of the illegal detention illegal arrest, evidence stemming that from should been suppressed.

Defendant cites cases addressing the requirements for constitutionally detaining defendant during a traffic stop. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted that traffic stop is not the only lawful basis for him the defendant’s detention. The police did use traffic violations adjust. In this case, however, it was not necessary to detain defendant wall his residence was being searched pursuant to a lawful search warrant for contraband based on upon a finding of probable cause.

This content was written for Cale Law Office

The Court of Criminal Appeals referred to the case of Michigan vs. Summers. That case involved a situation with police stopped and detained the defendant as he was coming down the steps of the house to be searched pursuant to a search warrant. The defendant challenges the constitutionality of his detention. The US Supreme Court recognized that certain seizures are so minimally intrusive upon the rights of an individual and at the same time so necessary to achieve substantial law enforcement interests that they may be made on something less than probable cause. The US Supreme Court held that for fourth amendment purposes, a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while I proper sought search is conducted.

The Supreme Court went on to further say that law enforcement interests are by a detention are the prevention of harm to the officers and residents, flight prevention, and the orderly completion of the search, which is done by the presence of the occupants. This holding was later dressed in the later case for Mueller vs. Mina. In that case the US Supreme Court added that Summers makes clear that when a neutral magistrate has determined place of probable cause to believe contraband exists, the connection of an occupant to a home alone justifies the attention of that occupant.

These two cases were recently relied upon by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case similar to Rochon’s.

In the case at hand, the police sought to the same the defendant while they executed a lawful search warrant of his home. Even though the defendant was stopped about a mile away from his home, this was reasonable under the circumstances. Additionally, even though the search started without the defendant being present, it was brought back to the residence for part of the search of his presence clearly Cerda stated purpose under US Supreme Court case law. Because the defendant was present, he was able to tell the officers how to open the safe.

However, the Oklahoma court of criminal pills did find that the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute count should be dismissed. The defendant’s possession of methamphetamine and marijuana within a sealed container while violating separate statutes, constitute a single act of possession. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that this issue is addressed in section 11 of title 21. Under that statute, if there is any other provision of law making a specific act or omission criminal, and there is another provision or section making the same act or omission a criminal offense, then that offense and punishment must be governed by the special provision. However, a criminal act or omission that is possible in different ways by different provisions. However, no case can be a criminal act or omission under more than one section of law. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under one sexual law bars prosecution for the same act under any section of law.