This content was written for Cale Law Office

Anyone charged with a crime needs a lawyer who has not only many years of experience, but the right kind of experience. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades and focuses on criminal defense. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.
The defendant was charged with driving under the influence of drugs and unsafely change. Defendant filed a motion to suppress and dismiss challenging the legality of initial traffic stop and attention. A hearing on defense motion was held. Special to suggest sustained appellants motion suppressed on the evidence resulted from a traffic stop. The state of Oklahoma appealed racing the following issues. One, the trial court erred in determining that the officer did not act as a private citizen and acted under color of law outside his jurisdiction. And two, if the officer was acting as apprentices and, he was acting under the community caretakers exception.
Stay present in one witness, that be a Tulsa police officer, had a motion to suppress. The officer testified he was driving home at approximately 10:25 PM who just completed his shift when he encountered the defendant. He was traveling east of his patrol car. The officer observed a white truck driven by the defendants being passed him weaving in and out of lanes. Although the defendant committed to traffic violations has he spent by the officer did not initiate stop at the time as he was off-duty and the defendant did not exhibit any patterns of driving that would be dangerous to anybody else besides the speeding. However, as the officer sped towards the boundary between Tulsa broken arrow, the officer became concerned for the safety the driver and others on the road and decide to radio Miller broken arrow Police Department regarding the situation select conduct an investigation. The officer explained that he was just going to fall the vehicle until the broken arrow Police Department got with him.
At one point, while the officer was following the defendant, he observed the defendant there left across the relate nearly strike concrete barrier. Shortly after entering prompt arrow, the defendant across numerous lanes, was going off the road. At this time, the officer decided that the defendant striding behavior had come to dangerous the act that is lights and sirens to affect stop. The officer stated I affect the stop when the defendant became danger to herself and the people around her. The officer testified that due to the defendant stager striving, he could no longer wait for the program there Police Department to intervene. As a stop, the officer made contact with the defendant waited for broken or placed officers to arrive. The broken arrow officers arrive soon after.
With a broken error officer arrived: the defendant was sitting the driver see the vehicle with the keys in the ignition. He did not sell the owner of alcohol, but absurd defendant was lethargic and as slurred speech. He appeared sleepy. The officers asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle and submit to standard field sobriety tests, which she failed. The officer placed the defendant under arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs and transported her to Hillcrest Hospital or consensual blood test. The defendant admitted taking Xanax.
Following the officer’s testimony, the trial judge sought clarification of what appeared to be conflicting case law involving officers outside the jurisdiction of Tina’s private citizens as well as under the color of law. Despite the trial court’s frustration, granted the defendant’s motion suppressed by finding that the officer acted outside his jurisdiction and proceeded as a private citizen who acted in properly under the car color of law when he uses lights and sirens stop the belly. As a general rule, police officers authority cannot extend beyond his or her jurisdiction, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Exceptions to this rule include: 1) hot pursuit; 2) when one minutes but County has requested the assistance of another municipalities officers; and 3) service of an arrest warrant.
Otherwise, once outside the city limits of them is pounded by which they are employed, the officer asked the provinces with the greater authority to better practices in. Based on the evidence in this case, Ofc. Rogers was clearly not acting pursuant the of history exceptions. Officer Rogers on the defendant’s decision to stop the defendant was not formed until he was outside his jurisdiction. Well within his jurisdiction, also Rogers had not witnessed the defendant commit any major infractions that it is he would be dangerous to others. Thus, the Tulsa officer cannot be found to have been in hot pursuit. The idea of fresh pursuit requires that also began the chase his own jurisdiction continue until a person is caught. Additionally, the Tulsa officer was not attempted to serve a warrant, nor was the evidence presented indicated the appropriate arrow placed upon request of the officer’s systems.
In one case, a police officer this is employee the nation conducted the arrest outside his trouble jurisdiction under the mistaken belief that he was also a deadly commission’s deputy sheriff unwanted County. The officer testify he observed signs defendant driving while intoxicated as she left a convenience store located on tribal land. The officer fall the defendant takes when a stop sign tribal land after observing the defendant commit additional driving infractions. The defendant was subsequently charged with aggravated DUI moved to suppress the evidence of various crowns. This crowns was that it challenge the validity of the deputies commission. The district court granted the motion, suppressing all the resulting evidence of intoxication. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed concluding that the tribal officer was probably acting as premises and under authority is statutes in title 22.
Spy thrown in this case, the court in the on Tulsa County case truck reconcile that case with stems case law provide an officer acting outside his or her jurisdiction, having no greater authority than a private citizen, may not act under color of law. Based on this line of cases, the Tulsa officer’s use of lights in size to make a stop became point content contention. Trying to reconcile these cases seemly confused the trial court which only determined that the Tulsa officer was not acting within his capacity as a private citizen when he stopped the defendant. The appellate court’s decision regarding an officer acting outside the church section is factually driven. The critical nuances of every case can vary, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.