Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Skilled Jury Trial Performance | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Are you looking for an aggressive Tulsa criminal defense attorney? Then call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. He will develop a free defense strategy plan document for you.
Prosecutors charged the defendant with possession of intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence sees during a roadside search of his vehicle. The district court denied the motion. The court sentenced him to 36 months probation with the first eight months on home confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenge the denial of his suppression motion. The appellate court affirmed.
The trooper gave the defendant his documents and told the traffic stop is over. The defendant, however, voluntarily agree to answer additional questions. Among other things, he told the trooper his residence in Seattle was a two-bedroom home provided by his employer. The trooper then asked the defendant if he could speak to us passenger. The defendant agreed. The passenger gave a story that was inconsistent with the defendants.
The trooper returned his patrol car told the defendant he was detained gave in the Miranda warning. During further questioning, the defendant admitted there was marijuana in the back of the U-Haul. Authorities found about 300 pounds of marijuana inside. Prosecutors charged the defendant with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant filed a motion suppressed evidence uncovered during the search, arguing that he was seized violation the fourth amendment when the trooper told him he was detained and read him his Miranda rights. Specifically, the defendant asserted that the trooper lacked reasonable, hearty will suspicion to detaining based solely on what he observed. The prosecution argued the conflicting statements given by the defendant’s passenger gave rise to reasonable, articulable suspicion.
When reviewing the denial the motion to suppress, the appellate court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. It also accepts the district court’s factual filing unless there clearly erroneous. The ultimate determination of whether a traffic stop is reasonable under the fourth amendment is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. The defendant is not challenge the lawfulness of the initial stop with consensual nature of his interaction with the trooper. He raises only two arguments.
First, you search the District Court should not of concluded that the trooper had reasonable articulable suspicion to detaining him after his passengers were was questioning before he admitted possession of marijuana. The defendant also argued that he was arrest without probable cause when the trooper gave him a Miranda warning. The court must first determine whether the totality of circumstances justify the detention. While original suspicion may not be based on the or hunch, the likelihood of criminal activity not rise to the level required for probable cause. If is considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.
The appellate court process reasonable suspicion in light of his totality of the circumstances, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Individual factors can contribute to reasonable suspicion even if each factor is not by itself proof of any illegal conduct is consistent with is a travel. The District Court concluded the defendants own conflicting statements about his travel plans were of limited significance because they were not in this early inconsistent. However, did give the following inconsistent statements of the defendant and the passenger considerable weight this included travel, place of employment and residency. As to abnormal travel plans, the district court did not consider than a significant factor on the room. Finally, the court noted that the nervousness of is of limited significance when determining reasonable articulable suspicion but consider the defendants nervousness because it was excessive.
The appellate court said under the totality of circumstances based on the disc court’s findings, the trooper had reasonable suspicion to detaining the defendant extend the traffic stop. The motors for his passengers inconsistent statements in response to questions can give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Confusion about details is often an indication the story is being fabricated on the spot. Vague and evasive answers may be considered in conjunction with other factors as contributing to an officer’s determination reasonable suspicion. Unusual nervousness may be considered as per the totality of circumstances a reasonable law enforcement officer would analyze investigative possible crimes.
The defendant conceded that his detention was an arrest not supported by probable cause. The appellate court is held that any theory suppression not presented to the district court falls inside the scope of the pellets right reserved by conditional plea. In a written plea agreement, the defendant reserved only the right to appealed the adverse determination of his motion to suppress. On appeal, he does not argue he did not knowingly and voluntarily into her his plea agreement.
If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, or any crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale will fight hard for you. He is an aggressive and skilled trial attorney. Your initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense.
In another case, a state prisoner proceeds pro se seeking to appeal is a denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. A jury convicted the defendant that endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment and imposed of the $2000 fine. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. With a year later, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s knowledge post-conviction relief. Later, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Here he 16 separate grounds rabies relief. Papers petition was referred to the magistrate judge who issued a report recommending dismissal. The defendant did not object to the recommendation. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800.