Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Meth Crime Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a methamphetamine crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Schedule your free initial consultation with the Cale law office by calling 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale provides aggressive legal defense. With nearly two decades of experience, attorney Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense.
Prosecutors charged the defendant with unlawful possession of methamphetamine. The judge dismissed the case after suppressing the evidence. The state appealed the adverse ruling. Here are the facts of the case.
A Sheriff’s deputy served a writ of the defendant. When the deputies arrived at the place of business, the defendant was leaving the bar. The deputy informed the defendant that he the paper to serve in the second chested that they step back inside. The deputy asked the defendant to take all this money from his pockets. The defendant started emptying his pocket, a small baggie with a light crystal substance fell out. So the deputies arrested him.
The deputies called for a drug dog to search around the defendant’s vehicle. Don’t alert to the owner narcotics coming from the vehicle. The defendant consented to the search of his vehicle, which is part of from the bar. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said he should never consent to search of any of your property. This cannot help you. It can only hurt you.
Officers found paraphernalia containing a white residue. Another envelope had seven bags of methamphetamine in it. Authorities obtained a search warrant for the bar. As part of that search warrant, they found numerous unabashed contain methamphetamine and a recipe to manufacture the drug. The bar is just a few feet from a school.
The judge suppressed all the evidence find a threat would not have authorized or allow deputies asked the defendant to empty his pockets. While reviewing just determine the officers proceeding good faith has an executed the civil read, he found that the deputy exceeded his authority. That they should not have asked the defendant to take everything out of his pocket because it was a probable cause at the time.
The prosecution argued that the District Court mistakenly in both the exclusionary rule. Instead, it should not to suppress the evidence resulted from the service of the writ of execution. Further, the prosecution argued that probable cause established by the head of the drug dog and the search warrant was legal. The defendant argued that the writ was a boy Goins face. Deputies exceeded their authority making the seizure illegal.
A law enforcement officer conducts a search when executing a writ of civil order upon a person’s real or personal property. The fourth amendment applies the civil context as well as the criminal context. The fourth amendment provides that the right of the people to be secure the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
Generally, warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Please do not need a warrant when the seizure occurs of the result of the civil order or rent. Immiscible spectrum must obtain a search warrant for conducted an administrative search of an individual’s home. Administrative searches are significant intrusions upon the interest protected by the fourth amendment. There’s a lack of procedural safeguards when this type of warrantless search occurs.
Oklahoma civil procedure propensity civil court litigant to execute upon the judgment of the dead lands and property. The writ of execution may only be issued by a court of record in the state. It is civil process directed to a County Sheriff. Everett of execution may only be issued following the entry of the judgment. The parties are not provided notice upon the initiation the lawsuit. A writ of execution may only be issued following the entry of the judgment. The parties to provide a notice upon the initiation the lawsuit. The prevailing party is given notice of entry of judgment. Generally, no writ of execution may issue for 10 days following the entry of judgment.
The subject may initiate challenges or take measures to avoid the writ of execution. Because the civil order or rent is court process, the resulting seizure constitutionally subject to the ultimate standard of reasonableness. Spring the court noted that where officers were acting pursuant to a court order, showing of unreasonable this execution of the civil process would be a laborious task. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the seizure the present case was reasonable.
Officer sees the property pursuant to civil read of execution. The writ had not been determined to be unreasonable on its face. The challenge was made to the written district court. Additionally, the officer’s actions did not go outside the authority of the red. The officer executed the red as it was presented to him. The writ of execution authorizes the officer to assume control dominion over the contents of the defendant’s pockets.
A writ of execution as a command to the officer to collect the money specified the rent the goods and chattels of the debtor. The power to levy authorizes the officer takes possession of the judgment debtor’s property. The defendant’s pocket pursuant to the writ, the officer perceived in plain view a small baggie of what appeared to be drugs. The officer did not violate the fourth amendment when he sees this bag. The court is applied the plain view doctrine or an officer is not searching for evidence against the accused comes across incriminating object.
The actions of the officers were not only reasonable, they were acting in good faith. The exclusionary rule is not apply when law enforcement has conducted a search in reasonable reliance upon the search warrant issued by Judge. The same rest applies to the civil read or order. The fruits of the search and seizure pursuant to the civil read will not be suppressed if found invalid.
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future unlawful police conduct. Willy-nilly application the exclusionary rule may well generate disrespect for the law enforcement demonstration of justice. The reviewing judge found the officers in this case proceeding good faith. The Oakland Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.