This content was written for Cale Law Office

Anyone has been charged with a crime needs a fighter in their corner. For aggressive legal representation, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with Cale law office is free.

This is a summary the case of U.S. vs. Hunnicut, a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case. Honeycutt was convicted of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute conspiracy to use or carry firearms during the commission of a drug trafficking crime. He pill the district court’s novice motion to suppress all searches and seizures.

After been indicted by grand jury, honey commit to suppress various evidence. His motion was denied. Here are the facts of the case. In January 1996 Glenpool police officers pulled behind the car on US Highway 75. It was being driven by Honeycutt. He had two passengers with him. The officer saw the vehicle we for five times across the shoulder line of her course of 45 miles. The officer suspected of the drug might be driving under the influence alcohol decide a mix of of the vehicle. The ulcer turned on the video camcorder in size patrol car and wireless my microphone his body which record the events that occurred. The officer turned on his lights in the vehicle pulled over to the shoulder after about 10 to 12 seconds of her course of half a mile.

They cut had a driver’s license but no insurance revocation. The officer asked Honeycutt to go to the patrol car where he ran a computer check on the vehicle and the driver’s license. To be to check show that the person to whom Honeycutt claimed to be purchasing the vehicle from was not a registered owner. Also Honeycutt’s license was suspended. He denied that there were any illegal substances or weapons the car. He was then arrested for driving under suspension.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that he should never consent to search of the vehicle. Also your conversation with plea should be minimum. You cannot help yourself by talking to police. Honeycutt refused to consent to the search of his car. K-9 unit was called by the officers K-9 unit arrived about 15 minutes later. The passengers in my possession of any weapons or contraband. However after getting on the car, when the passengers handed the officers a brown bag in which he found what appeared to be a large quantity of methamphetamine.

The doctor not alert to anything in the inside or outside car but did alert to the bag. The police officer search the car they found the pocket of bags underneath the driver’s seat a clip of 22 caliber cells the console and financial records. Officers assigned search the trunk at the PlayStation. The officers continue search and the pastor compartment, not between the seats in a loaded revolver on the console. At the police station officers found several other weapons, drugs, and a police scanner.

The defendant appealed the denial his motion to suppress arguing seven issues. That the stop was not justified. Secondly for the questioning about Ganson drugs was nonsupportive original suspicion. Thirdly the canine sniff was beyond the scope of the stop. Fourth, the canine sniff was outside the purpose of the search incident to arrest. Fifth, his refusal to consent to search should been considered in determining original suspicion or probable cause. Six, the impoundment was improper. And lastly, and the inventory search was on the pursuant to standardized procedures.

The determination of reasonableness under the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a question of law, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The fourth amendment protect the right of people to be secure the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A traffic stop is a seizure within the fourth amendment even though the purpose stop is limited and the resulting detention is brief, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

However, a routine traffic stop is more akin to investigative detention than a custodial arrest. Consequently, a traffic stop is analyzed under the principles developed for investigative detention set forth in Terry vs. Ohio. To determine the reasonableness of this can detention, there is a two prong inquiry. The first questions with the officer’s actions were justified at its beginning. Second question is whether it was reasonably related in scope the circumstances was justified in affairs the first place.

The case at hand, the 10th circuit Court of Appeals said that cases may clear that the government doesn’t need to show violation actually occurred to testify initial traffic stop. Initial traffic stop is found in the fourth amendment only if based on observed traffic violation, but also the officer has reasonable article will suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring. It is a matter that the officer may have had other subjective motives for stopping the vehicle. So question is whether the particular officer had reasonable suspicion that a particular motorist violated any of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations the jurisdiction.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that officers often will use a traffic violation or and equipment violation on a vehicle as a basis to pull over someone. Therefore, it’s very important that you observe all laws and make sure that your vehicle is compliant with regulations. An example of this is making sure that your lights operate properly. For aggressive legal representation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.

The defendant argued that questioning about guns and drugs was outside the scope the initial stop. Therefore without any subsequent with events to lead to reasonable officer to believe that encounter drug violation was occurring, the question was illegal. The 10th circuit held that an officer conducting a routine stop may request driver’s license and vehicle registration, run a computer check and issue a citation. The investigative detention usually must last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of stop. Scope and it of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. Lengthening the attention for the questioning beyond that related to the initial stop is permissible in two circumstances.