Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Reasonable Suspicion

This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with a crime, you need an attorney who’s going to fight for you. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. At the Cale law office you also get a complimentary defense strategy plan tailored just for your case.

The defendant was charged with obstructing an officer, resisting an officer, failure to carry insurance verification, and failure to signal. He filed a motion to quash illegal arrest and detention. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge granted the defendant’s motion and suppressed all evidence resulting from a traffic stop. State of Oklahoma appealed, raising five issues.

At the hearing on the motion to quash, a Tulsa police officer testified that he pulled a car over when he saw that the driver failed to signal when he was turning left to parking lot. He identified the driver as the defendant. The officer determined that the driver didn’t have insurance inside of him for obstruction and resisting. The prosecutor asked the officer whether the defendant could turn into this parking lot is reasonable Sadie. The officer replied that he could. Next the prosecutor asked whether there is a traffic on the road. The officer replied only the defendant’s vehicle and him.

After stop, defendant and a passenger asked of the vehicle. The defendant was not able to provide proof of valid insurance. On another officer was in the process of signing the defendant the traffic infractions, the defendant attempted to walk away from a traffic stop. The officer ordered the defendant stop the defendant continue to walk away from the scene. The officer then decision himself and the defendants the right path and ordered him to return to the car. The defendant replied that he could go where he wanted to and that the officer can stop them. Consequently, the officer physically restrained the defendant, having to push the defendant back towards the side of stop. During the struggle, the defendant turned around face to face with the officer. The officer directed the defendant to turn back around and put his hands behind act. On the defendant initially complied, he merely pulled away as the officer was attempting to handcuff. Another officer then stepped in to help sold arrest. The defendant’s attempt to avoid the restraining for deployment his hands away intent in attempting to lie on his hands.

The judge that the District Court made reference to the case that he found to be dispositive the matter that will defense counsel Kelly was aware of the case the state was not. State the question opportunity review and possibly respond to the case for the trial court ruled on the defendant’s motion. Trial court granted the states request in the hearing was included. The state responded that the officer made the traffic stop pursuant to a Tulsa immiscible ordinance. The ulcer’s report stated that he observed the driver and the left-hand turn without signaling. He said that was in violation of the city ordinance for a left turn, the drivers left hand and arm shall be horizontally outside the vehicle to indicate turning intention or blanker light shall be used.

Defendant challenge the states reference to the police report on evidentiary grounds. He further argued that the trial court was precluded from taking judicial notice of immiscible ordinance. The judge sustained the defendant’s motion to quash and suppressed on the evidence resulting from the stop. And so ruling, the judge stated he was stuck with the record that was presented a hearing. Additionally he said that no further edits was present at this hearing.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the mere fact that the officers police car and the defendant vehicle were the only two vehicles on the roadway at the time of the alleged trafficking fraction does not indicate a finding that the initial stop was illegal. However, the record in the case is not provided any indication of where the officer’s vehicle was in relation to the defendants vehicle to determine if the defendant’s failure to signal may have affected of a traffic for purposes of the statute. Additionally, the officer testified that the defendant can make a left turn safely to the parking lot.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the Supreme Court has recognized that as a general matter, decision to stop an automobile is reasonable please have Paul will constantly the traffic violations occurred. Additionally on the officer’s subjective motivation for actually something a particular vehicle is not relevant to the legality of the stop’s long as the officer had probable cause to believe a traffic violation had occurred. Facts provided by the record in the case at hand regarding the initial traffic stop are very limited. First the officer stopped defendant’s vehicle after observing the defendant failed to signal his intention to turn left into a parking lot. Secondly, we aspirant the defendant could make the left turn with safety, the ulcer replied yes lastly, in response to whether there was any traffic on the road, daughter stated only that the defendant’s vehicle and his was. Based on those limited facts and relying on Johnson vs. state, the judge ruled the initial stop was illegal pursuant to a statute in title 47. A statute reads in relevant part that no person shall turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate the as provided for in the section it, and the event any of the traffic may be affected by such movement.

As in the Johnson case, stop in this case was turning left that using a turn signal. Addressing the legality of his, the court analyzed the purpose of the signaling statute and determined that the legislature’s choice phrase may be affected. Finding that the purpose of the statute was for drivers to notify other motorists in the immediate area of their intentions to make a left turn or lane change in order to prevent accidents, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found the phrase means a driver must engage a turn signal when there is a reasonable possibility that the traffic may be affected. Therefore, proof of any actual effect on the other traffic is not a search prettify was. A reasonable possibility that other traffic may have been affected is sufficient. The evidence in the Johnson case est. the other cars were on the road at the time that Johnson failed to signal. Therefore, the court found this evidence was sufficient to prove that the statute have been violated in this case probable cause for stop.

Apply Johnson case here, the District Judge found the initial stop was illegal. However, referring to a US Supreme Court case, and stay contended his role as an error in a search the effect of the officers please car was on the runway me affected the defendant’s failure to signal sufficient for the violation. In doing so, the court further concluded that under the facts presented a police car can be the actual vehicle, or traffic, that may have been affected.