Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Skilled Jury Trial Work | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for aggressive criminal defense, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale Law Office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly 20 years of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense.

In reviewing the denial the motion to suppress, the appellate court will view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state. It will also ask of the district court’s findings of fact a list clearly erroneous. The standard for refused of the determination of reasonableness under the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects against the original searches and seizures. A temporary investigative’s detention, such as a traffic stop, constitutes a seizure the person within the meaning of the fourth amendment. The appellate court will analyze investigative detention’s under the standard set forth in Terry vs. Ohio.

Of those standards, the appellate court will evaluate the first wave of investigative detention was justified at its inception. Secondly, the appellate court will look at whether the officer’s actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified interference in the first place. The defendant did not challenge the legal just case for the traffic stop. Instead, he focuses on the second prong of the test, claiming the officers exceeded the scope stop enabled him out the car detained him for 25 minutes before mirandized you.

Defendant contended that the officer exceeded the scope of the stop when he initially asked him to step on the car. He says the officer merely believed he was trying to avoid detection. The argument was that he did this without original suspicion of criminal activity justify ordering about the car. However, police may remove patches from a car during a lawful traffic stop for officer safety concerns. The U. S. Supreme Court established a bright line rule that during a lawful traffic stop, also they were pastors of the car as a matter of officer safety. This is true even without any particular rice suspicion of personal danger, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

The officer knew the car was involved in a drug and firearms investigation. He knew the defendant had been driving without a license and that the defendant continued to look down and avoid eye contact. This behavior caused the officer a heightened concerned. Therefore, he order the defendant how the car. Given that the officer is authorized remove the defendant from the car without any particular rice suspicion of personal danger, there is no fourth amendment violation resulting from his directive to ask the car.

The appellate court then looked at the length of the detention. The defendant contended that the officers under his works to the stop by detaining him for 25 minutes before reading him his rights. He said the duration of this detention war suspicion of any inculpatory evidence. The appellate court disagreed. The court is parsley held an officer conducting a routine traffic stop may request a driver’s license and vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation. When the drivers produced a valid drivers license and proof is entitled to operate the car, must be allowed to proceed on his way without being subject to further delay by police for additional questioning.

While traffic stop is ongoing, an officer has one discretion state reasonable precautions to protect the safety. This includes asking for identification from passengers and running background checks on them. Questions concerning the suspects evidently a routine except the part of police investigations. This is because knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is one of for another offense. Or, going from the officer that the person has a record of violence or mental disorder. When the defendants own conduct insurance to a delay, he cannot complain that the resulting delay is unreasonable.

In this case, the defendant is the delay because he attempted to conceal his true identity. He twice gave the officer false names. This required the officer to run to write checks, both of which were inconclusive. His interest to conceal his identity also forced the officer to ask a passenger for his name. That was not helpful. It was not until after the defendant offered information concerning to homicides that his real name. Even after he did so, because the officer read him his Miranda warnings. Under the circumstances, the officer cannot be faulted for detaining the defendant long enough to determine his identity.

The defendant enters and offered plea in Oklahoma stay court on four counts of lewd molestation one count of an indecent proposal of the minor. The defendant asserted his innocence but knowledge of states evidence would be sufficient to convict. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced the defendant to 25 years imprisonment with half of the Senate suspended. After unsuccessfully challenging the conviction and stay court proceedings, the defendant filed a habeas corpus petition. The federal district court rejected his heinous claims and a separate claim for an injunction against the state’s enforcement in some provisions of his suspended sentence.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said there are basically two kinds of probation. The first is a deferred sentence. With a deferred sentence, the defendant must fulfill a certain term of probation. After the term of the probation is been completed, the case is dismissed if there have not been any violations of probation. The good thing about this is that there is no conviction. A suspended sentence a similar. But, there is one important distinction. With a suspended sentence, the case does not get dismissed. Therefore, it does count as a conviction.

If you’ve been charged with a serious crime, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. He has handled numerous jury trials and is a skilled lawyer. If you’re looking for a lawyer who will fight for you, hire attorney Stephen Cale. He is well worth the money.