This content was written for Cale Law Office
Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Trafficking Lawyer | Cale Law Office
Have you been charged with a drug trafficking crime? For aggressive legal representation, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale Law Office is free. Attorney Cale focuses his practice on criminal defense.
The District Attorney’s Office charged the defendant with trafficking drugs. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility parole. The defendant was driving RV on Interstate 40. Troopers stopped him for speeding. The trooper also knows that the defendant had a broken tail light.
The trooper approached RV and signal the defendant to roll down his window. The defendant appeared to be concealing something in only roll down the window a few inches. The trooper this strong small baby powder in Cologne. The troopers knew that these were often used to mask of drug smell. The trooper asked the defendant for his license and registration. The defendant nervously complied.
As to defendant reached over for these items, the trooper leaned in closer and smelled marijuana. This fact was not mentioned in his written report. However, he did testify to the preliminary hearing. The court said this was suspicious, healthily ruled that the officers preliminary test money came the suspicion.
The trooper issued a warning and then asked the defendant you drugs in his RV. He also asked if he could search the vehicle. Defendant denied possession refused permission to search. The trooper then ran his truck dog around the RV. The dog alerted to the vehicle twice. The trooper asked the defendant about this area the defendant eventually amended drugs were the driver side door. A search revealed drugs there, including 25 pounds of marijuana.
On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial judge should sustained his motion to suppress because the evidence was illegally obtained. The evidence showed that the trooper focused the search for illegal drugs. The focus was not issuing a traffic citation. Prior to his testimony, the trooper made 2400 traffic stops but issued only two tickets. Of those 2400 stops, or than half or four vehicles without state driver’s licenses. The trooper testified that the more people he stopped, the greater his chances of locating a criminal.
The U. S. Supreme Court has discussed traffic stops. In terms of initial justification for traffic stop, stop is reasonable or police a public cause to believe the traffic violation has occurred. In this case is not dispute the traffic violation occurred. When officer has public cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, is subjective motivation for stopped the vehicle is not relevant the legality of the stop. Subjective intentions play no role and probable cause.
Here, the trooper had justifiable reason for appointment defendant over. He clear reasons for expanding the scope of his inquiry and eventually make an arrest. The defense movement in the car prior to the officers contact, is there is demeanor, rolling down the window just a few inches the small baby power plus the smell of marijuana justify the trooper’s actions. This created probable cause to make an arrest. It without that effective drug dog him a car twice, the trooper had justifiable reason to search.
There is no fourth amendment or other violation of the U. S. Constitution. Secondly the defendant claimed that his conviction was improperly enhanced. First, the state failed to prove convictions would’ve been felonies in Oklahoma. Secondly, there is no reason to enhance the conviction. The state has the burden of proof prior convictions, there were obvious felonies in Oklahoma.
The defendant pled guilty to conspiring with four others to distribute drugs. He had other prior federal felonies. The court had held that the defendants traffic conviction was probably enhance with his prior convictions for violation of announce state drug crime. The court reasoned that the substance of the two state acts was comparable. It also the said that it would not use a hypo critical reading of the text of the statute.
If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, you should call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. His practice focuses on criminal defense. He has nearly two decades of experience. Attorney Cale will work very hard for you.
The defendant claimed that the video the search and drug evidence to from his car should been suppressed. He said that the trooper deny reasonable suspicion to detaining him. He also said that his consent to search was nonvoluntary, make an ensuing search of his car illegal. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the search before preliminary hearing. The judge held that the motion should be does not denied.
Dishes whether an officer in performing the motors assist call can demand to see the driver’s license and conduct the state check of the scene. The court held that the public interest in conducting a driver’s license status check prevailed over minimum intrusion, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant argued that the trooper to assess the situation conducted a welfare check by simply asking if help is needed. It was not, defense should been allowed to leave without having to produce a driver’s license.
Courts in other jurisdictions disagree. Some courts have held that a limited unoriginal seizure has occurred. Others of held that no seizure occurs when officer request the license and registration of a motorist or welfare check. Wisconsin court assume that a seizure at occur because was a display the police authority which could been made defendant Phil that is not free to go. It also make him feel like he can refuse the officer’s request for his license is the officer was in uniform.
One cordless to several reasons for permitting an officer to perform the motors assist and asked for driver’s license. First, officers were required to document written ports other contact with citizens. Secondly, an officer in the snow who is dealing with in the event that the citizen later complaints about improper behavior. Thirdly, even a parent is an activity, such as refueling a disciple car, the later turn out to be effect of the car. The court found that the public interest in producing license was implied. The court made clear that officers do not have an unfettered discretion to stop driver’s requests driver’s license.