Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Master at Trial | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, you need to hire someone who is good at trial. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has nearly 20 years of experience. He is also handled numerous jury trials. He is well worth the money.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He moved to suppress a firearm that forms the basis for the charge is the product of an unconstitutional search. Authorities seized firearm during the search warrant to arrest warrant issued by Judge. The district court held that although there was insufficient evidence of probable cause to justify the warrant, the officers executed a warrant were entitled to allow good faith. After the judge denied his motion, the defendant entered a conditional plea never preserved his right to appeal. Here’s a summary the facts of the case.

The defendant failed to appear in court on state charge. Officers discovered that the defendant cut off his GPS monitor fled from his house where you’ve been staying. Based on these events, the court issue a warrant for his arrest. The detective was assigned to locate the defendant taken into custody. The defendant investigation took two primary facets. First, the objective to obtain in order to track a phone number he believed that the defendant was using. Someone turn on the phone in several phone calls or place to a woman with whom the defendant previously been living.

Two days later, technicians tracked the phone to a general vicinity of an apartment complex. Police received a paying from the cell phone and placed him nearby. The detective told the judge in seeking a warrant to search the house picked in part of this information, a paying is a notification from the cell phone carrier the phone is active in turned on. Provides a distance between the near cell phone tower in the phone. In this case, the ping was accurate within a range of six feet. The officers then confirmed that the woman resided in a certain location observed a white Cadillac the parking lot registered to her.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale fights to get a case dismissed. This includes filing a motion to suppress the evidence that the state is obtained. This is a way of getting evidence thrown out. When this happens the case is dismissed. Attorney Cale has had numerous cases dismissed because he filed motions to suppress or to quash the charge. For aggressive legal representation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. It’s important that you call him right away.

Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Master at Trial

If you want a criminal defense attorney who will fight for you, then you need to find one who has trial experience. That’s because if your case is not get dismissed, it will go to trial before a judge or a jury. This assumes that you do not agree to a plea deal. Attorney Stephen Cale’s been practicing for nearly 20 years. He has a great deal of experience with jury trials.

At the trial court, the defendant moved to suppress the rifle. He argued that the detective did not provide probable cause in his affidavit that a firearm would be located at the address. The district court agreed that the affidavit did not establish probable cause. The court based his decision on three things. First, there is no information the affidavit to establish want the woman’s reliability. Secondly, there is no information the affidavit to establish the timeliness of the woman’s assertions. This was particularly so that the defendant always carried a gun. Lastly, there is no information the affidavit to establish a connection between the firearm and the address.

Nevertheless, the court declined to suppress the firearm. This is because it decided to apply the good faith exception to the warrant requirement. In doing so, the court considered knowing the information in the detective’s affidavit, but also information garnered from the detective at the suppressing hearing that was not included in the affidavit. Specifically, the court noted the following: one, that the affidavit had been prepared by an assistant district attorney; two, the threat to the woman’s father occurred less than two months before the warrant application; and third, the police report corroborated the woman story about the threat to her at her neighbor. Considering these facts along with information the affidavit, the district court cannot say that was entirely unreasonable for the detective to rely on the judge’s authorization to search the apartment for firearms.

The District Court applied the Leon good faith exception to the warrant requirement. The question appeal is whether the good faith exception to the warrant requirement should apply to a firearm found that the house. Before reaching the question, the appellate court first addressed the standard of review on appeal. Ordinarily, the appellate court will review district court’s application of the good faith exception to the warrant requirement de novo. The standard is predicated on the appellate having objected to the child’s action at the district court level.

In this case, there’s the question that the defendant objected to the weapon be introduced into evidence against him. Additionally, the fence suppression motion adequate considered whether the good faith exception would apply if the District Court defined at the warrant lacked probable cause. The prosecution argued that the issue on appeal is subject to the plain error review. At the suppression hearing, the defense counsel objected multiple times to the detective’s testimony regarding information that would tend to support probable cause. He did so because it wasn’t included in the affidavit. Nor was it presented orally to the issuing magistrate. The defense attorneys basis for doing so was that it was not relevant as to the proceeding. What additional information the detective was provided to issuing judge outside the four corners of the affidavit was not relevant. If you’re looking for the best criminal defense lawyer in Tulsa, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.