Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053(6) Archives

S-2018-229

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:S

**Summary of Case: State of Oklahoma v. Brittney Jo Wallace, 2019 OK CR 10** **Court**: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma **Case No.**: S-2018-229 **Date Filed**: May 23, 2019 ### Background: Brittney Jo Wallace was charged in the District Court of Rogers County with two counts of Enabling Child Abuse and one count of Child Neglect. A pretrial hearing was held regarding her motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone, which was granted by the trial court. ### Key Points: 1. **Appeal by State**: The State of Oklahoma appealed the trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained from Wallace's cell phone, arguing that the seizure was supported by probable cause. 2. **Legal Standards**: - The appeal is evaluated under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, which allows the State to appeal a pretrial order suppressing evidence in cases involving certain offenses. - The appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a motion to suppress. 3. **Probable Cause & Exigent Circumstances**: - The court recognized that warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable but can be justified under certain conditions, such as probable cause and exigent circumstances. - The detective believed that Wallace's phone contained evidence of child abuse and had sufficient reasons to act quickly to preserve that evidence. 4. **Actions Taken with the Phone**: - The detective accessed the phone with Wallace's assistance to forward calls and put the device in airplane mode, actions viewed as reasonable to prevent potential evidence loss. 5. **Trial Court's Findings**: - The trial court suppressed the evidence, stating the seizure and accessing of the phone were illegal. The appellate court found this decision to be an abuse of discretion, as the actions taken by law enforcement were justified. 6. **Search Warrant**: - The State also challenged the trial court's ruling regarding a subsequent search warrant for the cellphone, which the trial court deemed overly broad and not supported by probable cause. - The appellate court highlighted the need for the defendant to provide evidence showing the invalidity of the warrant and noted the lack of factual development in the record. ### Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence. It determined that the initial seizure and accessing of Wallace’s phone were reasonable and consistent with legal standards. The matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The decision was unanimously concurred by all judges. **Document Link**: [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-229_1734331323.pdf) --- This summary encapsulates the critical elements of the case, focusing on the legal principles involved and the court's reasoning without delving into detailed citations or procedural minutiae.

S-2013-483

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 3, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-483, the defendant appealed his conviction for various crimes involving minors, including sodomy, lewd acts, and sexual battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the State's appeal regarding the exclusion of certain evidence. One judge dissented from this decision. Thomas Bradley Porton was charged with serious crimes against children. The crimes included sodomy and other lewd acts, as well as providing alcohol to minors and possessing indecent photographs. These charges were based on incidents that occurred in McCurtain County. During the pretrial, the State wanted to use photographs found on Porton's computer as evidence. However, the judge ruled that these photographs could not be used in court. The State believed that the photos were important to prove their case against Porton. They argued that the photographs showed a pattern of behavior that related to the crimes he was charged with. The State appealed the judge's decision to keep the photographs out of the trial. They said that their ability to prove Porton's guilt was greatly affected without this evidence. The law allows the State to appeal when evidence is excluded if it is believed to be in the interests of justice. However, the court found that the State did not show that the photographs were a critical part of the evidence needed to prove the case. Because of this, the appeal was denied, meaning the photographs would not be part of the trial. The ruling pointed out that the trial judge had looked closely at the case and had reasonable grounds to decide that the photographs were not relevant or that their potential to cause unfair problems outweighed their usefulness as evidence. One judge disagreed with the majority opinion. He felt that the photographs should not have been excluded because they could help prove Porton's motive and intent regarding the charges. He argued that evidence of other actions taken by the defendant should have been considered, especially since there were connections between the photographs and the charges against Porton. In summary, the court upheld the lower court's decision to exclude the evidence, impacting the State's case against Porton, while one judge believed this decision was incorrect and would have allowed the evidence.

S-2012-166

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 7, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-166, Moises Gonzales-Tello appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Heroin. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma appealed a decision made by the district court. This decision was based on a traffic stop where law enforcement officers discovered evidence of a crime, but the evidence was later deemed inadmissible. The district court ruled that the stop had taken too long and that the officer did not have a proper reason to keep the suspect detained after the initial reason for the stop was completed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed several unusual things that made him suspicious. He called for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene. Even though the officer asked for permission to search the car, he did not actually let the suspect leave and did not return his driver's license or paperwork. The dog arrived about 30 minutes after the stop began, but did not find anything. After the dog didn't indicate any signs of drugs, the officer conducted his own search and found a significant amount of heroin. The court looked closely at whether the officer had enough reason to continue holding the suspect after the initial reason for the traffic stop was accomplished. While the State argued that the officer's actions were justified, the court explained that to search a car without a warrant, an officer must have either permission from the owner or a strong reason to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. In this case, the dog did not find anything and the officer did not get enough proof that would justify a search. If there had been clear consent from the suspect for the search, the situation might have been different. However, the way the officer asked for consent made it seem as if the suspect did not truly have a choice. When the court reviewed the case, they found that the district court made a reasonable decision in ruling that the initial detention was too long and that the search was not justified. The State also argued against using the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The court did not agree with the State on this argument, as they did not provide enough support for their claim. In summary, the court decided to maintain the district court's order to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, agreeing that the officers did not follow the correct procedures.