Plain View Doctrine Archives

S-2013-127

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 8, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-127, Isaac Paul Bell appealed his conviction for Possession of a Weapon on School Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that quashed and dismissed the case. One judge dissented. Isaac Paul Bell was accused of having a weapon on school property, which is against the law in Oklahoma. Bell filed a motion to have the charges dropped, and the judge agreed, deciding that the charges could not stand. The state of Oklahoma did not agree with this decision and appealed, arguing that the police had enough reasons to stop and search Bell. The state presented three reasons why they thought the dismissal was wrong. First, they argued that because there were weapons in plain sight, the police had a good reason to stop Bell. Second, they claimed that Bell agreed to let the police search his car after they asked him about other weapons, and that was okay. Finally, they said the court made a mistake by dismissing the charges when they believed there was enough proof to continue the case. The reviewing court looked carefully at all parts of the situation. They understood that officers must have a good reason to stop someone and that the police had to follow rules when stopping and searching a person. The court found that the officer did not have a strong enough reason to stop Bell. When the officer saw the knives in Bell's truck, there was no reason to think Bell was doing anything wrong because he had not broken any laws, and the knives were properly stored. The court also considered whether Bell's agreement to let police search his truck was valid since he had already been detained wrongly. They decided that Bell's consent was not free and voluntary because it happened immediately after the wrongful detention. Since Bell was handcuffed and questioned by an armed officer without being informed of his rights, the court determined that his consent did not fix the problem caused by the illegal detention. Because of how they resolved the first two points, the third point from the state was no longer important. Therefore, they affirmed the decision to dismiss the case against Bell.

F-2008-1043

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 4, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1043, William D. Hibdon appealed his conviction for endeavoring to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand his convictions. One judge dissented. Hibdon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to a total of 31 years in prison. The convictions were based on evidence found after police officers searched his home without a search warrant. The police had gone to Hibdon’s house after receiving a tip that he was making methamphetamine. When they arrived, they smelled ether, a chemical often used in meth production. After arresting Hibdon, one officer entered the house without a warrant and found more evidence. Hibdon argued that this search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, but this was denied by the trial court. The appeals court found that the officers had enough time to get a search warrant but did not do so. They decided that there was no immediate danger to the public that would justify the warrantless search. Since the officers did not meet the requirements for an emergency situation, the court believed Hibdon’s rights were violated. Therefore, the evidence obtained during the search could not be used against him. The court reversed Hibdon's convictions and sent the case back for further proceedings. One judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing that the police acted correctly in their search based on the circumstances they faced at the time. This dissenting opinion asserted that the smell of ether justified a limited check of the house for safety reasons. Overall, the majority decision emphasized the importance of obtaining a proper search warrant to protect individuals' rights, while the dissent highlighted the potential dangers law enforcement officers may face in similar situations.