Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Marijuana Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale has nearly 20 years of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. Schedule your free initial consultation by calling the Cale Law Office.
The DAs office charged the defendant with conspiracy to trafficking methamphetamine, unlawful use of a communication facility, conspiracy to trafficking marijuana, trafficking in methamphetamine, distribution of marijuana, and trafficking in methamphetamine. The jury convicted him of all counts. But the defendant appealed. Here’s a summary the case.
The defendant contended that his motion to suppress should have been sustained. He related to the particularity of a search warrant. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said that detailed directions were given in the search warrant. The enabled police to find the defendant’s home without any difficulty. The inaccuracy of the physical address of the house did not rent or the warrant constitutionally invalid. Therefore the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
The defendant also argued that the order authorizing wiretapping’s phone conversations was invalid. He said there was no evidence that the district attorney submits a written application for such order. Additionally, the written application for the order included an incorrect description of the defendant’s physical address. Moreover, the state failed to establish that all other reasonable modes investigation have been exhausted forsake my order. The Oklahoma court of criminal appeals did not find a law that a wiretap order can be initiated only by the district attorney.
The missed description of the defendant’s fiscal draft was immaterial. That’s because the order was directed not in a physical place but at a mobile communications device. The telephone number, serial number, restrict owner were all correctly identified. Lastly, the wiretap application and related with particularly why other methods investigation had proven unsuccessful. The state did not have to exhaust every other conceivable investigative tool before seeking a wiretap order.
In another case, a jury found the defendant guilty of unlawful distribution of methamphetamine within 2000 feet of a school. This is not a listed 85 percent rule crime. The defendant sentence was enhanced his prior convictions that included both drug and I’m drug offenses. The driving has been a statute for the defendant’s crime contained a separate provision requiring the defendant to serve 85 percent of his sentence. The defendant claimed on appeal that based on the separate enhancement statute, he should receive an 85 percent rule instruction. However, the defendant sentence was not enhanced under the statute but are different ones. As the fence crime is not an 85 percent rule crime, the appellate court held that he was not entitled to such instruction.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that he works to undermine the prosecution. Sometimes he will get a charge dismissed because the state has not properly filed the charge. This is called a demurrer or motion to quash. This is a way to get a charge dismissed without having to go to trial.
Throughout the trial, the defendant challenged the validity of the search warrant of his home. The judge issued the warm based on an anonymous tip. The judge signed the no-knock search warrant. An officer signed the affidavit supported the search warrant on the same date. The affidavit stated that the detective both received a phone call from an anonymous person about drug dealing. They also talked about possession of a firearm in a particular residence. The caller said she was concerned the children were present in the home were a potential risk. Call refused to provide her identity because she was afraid she would be killed.
The anonymous caller stated that the defendant was living at a certain address with his son and some your children. The caller stated that the defendant worked and like construction. Call also stated that the defendant had been arrested 10 years ago for having drugs and firearms. Additionally, the caller stated that he had been an acquaintance of the defendant for several years and was in his home the previous night.
The caller stated that why was inside the house, he saw a plastic bag containing a brick of a green leafy substance. The caller believed that this was marijuana. The car also some guns which he saw the defendant carry on previous occasions. Furthermore, the caller stated that he saw what appeared to be a drug transaction between the defendant and a Hispanic man from Tulsa.
The officer summarized investigations that were going on the can from the reliability of the tip. He noted the following facts. The defendant was listed as a bill pair for the house at issue. The residence to appear to have some construction work being done. Cars described by the caller were in fact at the house. Additionally, detectives learned that a woman residing at the house had been arrested in Coweta for possession of cocaine and marijuana.
The U. S. Supreme Court has discussed anonymous tips and how to evaluate them to assess the reliability. The court noted that unlike a tip from a known informant an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates truthfulness. This is not like a tip from a known informant his reputation can be assessed. The known informant also can be held responsible if his allegations turn out to be false. The High Court recognized that there are situations in which an anonymous tip can be adequately corroborated. This provides sufficient indicators of reliability that will allow law enforcement officers to take intrusive action based on the tip. The tip in the U. S. Supreme Court case provided no basis for die when the college reliability or is accessed inside information. Therefore, it cannot justify the stop.
If you’ve been charged with a marijuana crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale will meet with you and evaluate your case. He will also provide you with a free defense strategy plan document.