This content was written for Cale Law Office

When you’re looking for a Tulsa criminal defense attorney, you want the best. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Stephen Cale will discuss your case with you and develop a free defense strategy plan to take with you.

Police and test was supposed maybe you need help as well as investigating crimes. Every police and citizen encounter has the potential to unfold a number of ways. Activity is suspicious with an officer’s attention when it is out of the ordinary. It doesn’t need to be obviously criminal, just unusual. The U.S. Constitution the state constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of citizens of the property. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals will evaluate the reasonableness of encounter such as the one in this case under the principles found in Terry vs. Ohio, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. That means that the court will look at whether the officer’s initial count was testified at its inception, and whether his later actions are reasonably related in the scope to the circumstances which justified interference in the first place.

There’s nothing reasonable the police approaching citizens in a public place especially they might appear to need assistance. There’s also nothing reasonable about police requesting basic information from others to ensure that they, and their vehicles are complying with the law. These encounters only become a reasonable with police obtain motorist longer than should be necessary to complete inquiries. If turned such routine encounters, the officer develops reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the encounter may be extended as necessary. This means it must be done without unreasonable delay to confirm or dispel that suspicion through lawful means.

In this case, the deputy has the right to check on the welfare. The defendant had been traveling on a motorcycle. The deputy could reasonably ask to see drivers license and vehicle information. Once he learned the motorcycles not legally drivable public roads the deputy was authorized by law to arrest the defendant or impel the vehicle.

The stop of the motorcycle involved an inventory of its contents for security liability purposes, that is, to protect the public, the vehicle owner, and the police. Such an undertaking is reasonable is not considered a search under fourth amendment principles. The court could conclude its analysis by stating that the discovery of the methamphetamine was inevitable. Exclusion of physical evidence that would inevitably have been discovered it’s nothing to you integrity or fairness of the criminal trial. But even apart from the inevitable discovery doctrine, the officer subsequent actions were all reasonable scope and duration.

Having decided to impound the motorcycle because it wasn’t drivable, the deputy reasonably called for the assistance in the endeavor the drugs that the K-9 was nearby and right 10 minutes. Deployment of the dog run the motorcycles a search, and the K-9 signal for the probable cause to believe that one or more of the controlled drugs that the animals trained to detect were hit on the vehicle.

The record shows that the defendant was a driver of the car that also had a  passenger, a young child, and two dogs. Please stop the defendant for traffic violation. The officers testified at preliminary hearing that the defendant had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and an odor coming from her that resembled an alcoholic beverage. He testified the defendant’s vehicle was thought to have been involved in a hit-and-run accident prior to being stopped for traffic violation. A breathalyzer test showed the defendant to have a blood alcohol content of .17.

The magistrate found the state offer no evidence to show that the defendant was related to the child. Specifically there was no evidence that she was a parent, guardian, or person having control or cussing the child. The judge found only that the person prove to a child was a passenger was identified as the child’s father. The judge concluded state failed to produce probable cause concern the crimes of child neglect or child abuse were committed by the defendant. The judge also concluded that the state produce no evidence of crime of child endangerment because it failed to establish a relationship with the child to the defendant.

The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to establish probable cause that the crime was committed Apollo cause the defendant committed the crime. Standard review is whether the evidence taken in light most favorable to the state is sufficient find that a felony crime is been committed and that the defendant probably committed the crime. Without an abuse of discretion in reaching that determination, trial court’s ruling remain undisturbed.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held in a 2006 case that a child neglect conviction requires a showing that the defendant was a person responsible for the child victims health, safety or welfare. The court reached this conclusion to exclude the then existing child neglect statute from being applied in the manner the legislature did not intend. The court in a 2000 case found the essential element of the child sexual abuse statute was proof that the defendant was a person responsible for child’s health. If you’ve been charged with child abuse, you need the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that child neglect requires evidence of willful or malicious neglect by any parent or another person. Statute references the definition of child neglect in title 10 a has the failure or omission to protect the child from exposure to illegal activities. In this instance driving a vehicle while intoxicated is an illegal activity. The statute was intended to apply to the defendant is responsible for child safety. The fact that the defendant was not the child’s parent is not relevant to the charge. As a consequence, the stay presents insufficient evidence proving that the defendant, who was another person, was a control the vehicle. She was struck and driving the vehicle while the child was in the backseat.

Child endangerment occurs when a person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody and control over child knowingly permits a child to be present in a vehicle the person knows or should know that the offer of the vehicle is impaired by or is under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicated substance. It also occur when a person is the driver, operator, or person in physical control the vehicle in violation of transporting or having equal while drunk. Looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney? Give the Cale Law Office at call at 918-277-4800.