Reasonable Suspicion

S-2018-952

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

### COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ### STATE OF OKLAHOMA ### CASE NO. S-2018-952 **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** Appellant, v. **JOHN GLENN MORGAN** Appellee. **OPINION** *Rowland, J.:* The State of Oklahoma charged John Glenn Morgan with possession of a controlled drug, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and unsafe lane change. Following a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of Morgan's vehicle during a traffic stop, the district court granted the motion, resulting in the dismissal of two felony counts against Morgan. The State appeals this decision, claiming errors in the district court's evaluation of the traffic stop's duration, Morgan's consent to a search, the justification for continued detention, and the applicability of an independent source doctrine. **BACKGROUND** On September 5, 2018, Owasso Police Officer Josua Goins stopped Morgan after witnessing reckless driving. During the stop, a drug dog was brought to screen the vehicle. After the dog alerted, officers found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The district court later ruled that the extended detention to wait for the drug dog was not supported by reasonable suspicion after the initial traffic violation was addressed. ### DISCUSSION #### Proposition 1: Proper Evaluation of Duration of the Stop The court acknowledges that any motorist has the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under both the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions. A traffic stop should be limited to its purpose, and any extended detention must be justified through reasonable suspicion. The district court considered the duration of the stop and determined that once Officer Goins had administered necessary tests and checks, he had no basis for further detention and should have issued a citation. #### Proposition 2: Consent to Search and Duration Requirements The State argues that Morgan's consent to search the trailer should extend the permissible duration of the stop. Still, the court finds that the time spent inspecting the trailer after the sober tests and inspection does not justify further detention without any additional reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. #### Proposition 3: Justification for Extended Detention The State failed to provide sufficient justification for extending the detention beyond investigating the traffic violation. The details already addressed during the stop contradicted the necessity for prolonged inquiry based on Morgan's logbook, a secondary issue due to the unavailability of a trooper to assist. #### Proposition 4: Independent Source Doctrine The State contended that any evidence obtained during the illegal extension could be justified under the independent source doctrine; however, the trial court found no separate basis for the initial stop's extension that would legitimize the evidence obtained afterward. ### DECISION The Court affirms the district court's ruling to grant Morgan's motion to suppress. The evidence obtained during the extended stop is inadmissible, reinforcing the importance of adhering to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure during traffic stops. **Affirmed**. **Concurrences**: Lewis, Kuehn, Lumpkin, Hudson. [Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/S-2018-952_1734278226.pdf)

Continue ReadingS-2018-952

F-2018-542

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-542, Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that relief was required, and the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Charles Henry Tarver, Jr. was tried by a jury and convicted of having illegal drugs with the intent to sell them and for having drug paraphernalia. He was given a long prison sentence and a fine. Tarver appealed this decision because he believed that the evidence used against him was obtained illegally when a police officer stopped him for a minor traffic violation. The events leading to Tarver's arrest happened on May 23, 2016. A deputy police officer stopped Tarver because the light on his truck’s license plate wasn’t working. During this stop, the officer noticed that Tarver was very anxious and had trouble staying still. Instead of quickly giving him a ticket and letting him go, the officer waited for backup and a dog trained to detect drugs. While waiting, the officer searched Tarver's truck, finding illegal drugs. Tarver argued that this search was not allowed under the law because it happened without enough reason to keep him there longer than necessary for the traffic stop. Initially, the judge at Tarver’s trial ruled that the stop was legal, but he did not consider whether the stop went on too long without proper reasons. This was an important mistake because the law says that once the reason for a stop is handled, the police cannot keep someone for longer without having a good reason to think that person is doing something illegal. The appeals court reviewed the case and found that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the burden of proving that the police action was legal on Tarver instead of where it should have been on the state. The appeals court agreed that the stop was carried out longer than necessary, and the police officer did not have enough solid reasons to justify keeping Tarver there longer than the original traffic issue. The court decided to reverse Tarver's convictions and told the district court to dismiss the charges against him because the search that found the drugs was not properly justified. One judge disagreed with this outcome, arguing that the police acted reasonably based on their experiences and knowledge about Tarver. This dissenting opinion held that the evidence might still be good enough to uphold the conviction. In the end, the decision meant that Tarver would not have to serve time for these charges, as the evidence against him was deemed to have been collected improperly.

Continue ReadingF-2018-542

F-2018-313

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-313, Juan Jose Nava-Guerra appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs and Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence but modified it to lower the fees assessed. One judge dissented. Nava-Guerra was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a total of 105 years in prison for each count, which would run at the same time. He argued that his rights were violated during the trial due to several reasons. First, he claimed the trial court allowed hearsay statements that should not have been presented as evidence. However, the court found that since Nava-Guerra himself had introduced similar evidence in his defense, he could not claim there was an error in allowing the State's evidence. Second, he argued that the search of the vehicle he was in was unlawful, claiming that the officer did not have a valid reason to stop the car. The court reviewed the details of the stop and found that there was a valid reason based on the car following too closely behind another vehicle, which justified the officer's actions. Third, he contested the admission of a specific exhibit, which was a transcription of audio from the car. The court decided that, like the first issue, since he used nearly the same exhibit in his defense, he could not argue it was wrong for the State to use it. Finally, Nava-Guerra challenged the fee for his defense attorney, saying it was too high. The court agreed that the fee assessed was higher than allowed by law and modified it to the correct amount. In summary, the court found no significant errors in the trial except for the fees, which needed to be reduced. The final decision was to uphold the conviction but change the fees owed.

Continue ReadingF-2018-313

S-2018-978

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

**State v. Cousan: Summary of the Court's Decision** In the case of *State of Oklahoma v. William Lee Cousan*, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the legality of the police actions leading to the arrest of Cousan and the subsequent search of his person that resulted in the discovery of crack cocaine. **Background:** William Lee Cousan was charged with Illegal Drug Trafficking, Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. The charges arose from a police investigation initiated by an anonymous tip suggesting that Cousan was dealing drugs from a Motel 6 room. Following a surveillance operation and gathering additional evidence, police obtained a search warrant for Cousan's motel room. While executing the warrant, Cousan left the motel in a vehicle, and police conducted a traffic stop approximately eight blocks away. During this stop, officers found cocaine on him and placed him under arrest. Cousan argued that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant during his detention and that the subsequent search of his person was unlawful. **District Court Ruling:** The district court agreed with Cousan's motion to suppress evidence, stating that the search was not justified as incident to the execution of the search warrant since it occurred outside the immediate vicinity of the premises. **Court of Criminal Appeals Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, holding: 1. **Probable Cause:** The court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Cousan at the time of his detention based on the tips and surveillance evidence indicating he was dealing drugs. 2. **Lawful Search Incident to Arrest:** The search of Cousan's person was deemed lawful as a search incident to arrest because probable cause existed for that arrest, independent of the execution of the search warrant. 3. **Inevitability Doctrine:** Even if the court did not find probable cause at the time of the stop, the officers could have made a valid investigative stop based on reasonable suspicion. Given the circumstances, the evidence inevitably would have been discovered after the execution of the warrant. 4. **Categorical Detention Rules:** The appeals court acknowledged that while the detention of Cousan was not justifiable under the Summers rule (as it did not occur immediately near the premises), the officers still had the right to detain Cousan based on the totality of circumstances, including the undercover work that had identified him as a key suspect. **Conclusion:** The appellate ruling overturned the district court's decision to suppress the evidence found on Cousan, allowing the State of Oklahoma to continue its prosecution for illegal drug trafficking and associated charges. **Final Note:** The opinion reflects on the importance of understanding both the probable cause standard for arrest and the rules surrounding lawful searches and seizures, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public safety in law enforcement practices.

Continue ReadingS-2018-978

S-2016-95

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2016-95, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for acquiring proceeds from illegal drug activity. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the district court that granted a Motion to Suppress evidence. One judge dissented. The case began in Sequoyah County when the driver of a vehicle was stopped for speeding. During the traffic stop, the trooper checked the driver's license and vehicle documents, and after issuing a warning, asked if he could use a drug-sniffing dog on the vehicle. The driver said no and wanted to leave. Despite this, the trooper asked him to get back into the patrol car and moved ahead with deploying the dog. The drug dog found a large amount of cash hidden in the spare tire of the truck. The State appealed the decision saying that the trooper had enough reason to keep the driver there for the drug dog search. The trooper noted that the driver was very nervous, the truck was unusually clean with a strong air freshener scent, and the driver had two cell phones. When a police officer stops someone, they can only keep them there for as long as needed to handle the reason for the stop, which in this case was the speeding. The officer can extend the stop if they have reasonable suspicion that something illegal is happening, but they need solid reasons to do this. In reviewing the trooper's actions, the court looked at the overall situation, including the video from the stop, and decided that the trooper did not have enough reasonable suspicion to keep the driver longer. The factors the trooper mentioned did not add up to a valid reason for the ongoing detention. As a result, the court upheld the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence obtained from the drug dog search, meaning the cash found could not be used against the driver in court. The State’s appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingS-2016-95

S-2015-972

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-972, Marco Callejas appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm after juvenile adjudication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to grant Callejas' motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One judge dissented. Marco Callejas was charged with two crimes in Tulsa County. The charges included unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute and having a firearm after being a juvenile delinquent. During his preliminary hearing, the official decided that the stop made by the officer was valid but dismissed one of the charges while moving forward with the other. Before the actual trial began, Callejas argued that there wasn't enough evidence against him and that the evidence collected during the stop should not be used. The judge agreed and dismissed both charges, so the State decided to appeal the judge's decision. The State argued that the judge made errors during the hearing, especially in determining that there wasn't a valid reason for the traffic stop. They explained that the officer interpreted a local traffic law to mean that drivers must hesitate before changing lanes. However, the judge decided that this interpretation of the law was incorrect and that Callejas did not break any laws because he signaled before changing lanes safely. The appeals court looked closely at the traffic law in question and agreed with the judge that the law did not say drivers had to pause before changing lanes. The court pointed out that the officer could see Callejas signaled before making the lane change and that no other traffic was affected by his action. Therefore, there was no valid reason for the officer to stop Callejas. The State also tried to argue that a past decision, involving another case, should apply here, but the court concluded that the current law was clear and did not have the same ambiguities as the previous case. Ultimately, the appeals court confirmed that the traffic stop was based on a misunderstanding of the law. The court affirmed the original decision to suppress the evidence gathered from the stop and to dismiss all charges against Callejas. This means that Callejas did not face criminal charges due to the invalidity of the stop. In summary, the court found that the trial judge made the right call in dismissing the case because the police officer did not have a good reason to stop Callejas.

Continue ReadingS-2015-972

S-2015-446

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-446, James Leonard Martinez appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating without mud flaps. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that suppressed evidence in the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Officer Porter stopped Martinez's vehicle because he believed it lacked the required mud flaps, which the officer thought was a violation of the law. However, the trial court found that Martinez's car had fenders, and according to the statute, if a vehicle has fenders, it does not need mud flaps. Thus, the officer's stop was not justified. The State argued that even if the law did not apply to Martinez's vehicle, Officer Porter had a reasonable but mistaken belief about the law when he stopped Martinez. However, the trial court ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of the law was not reasonable because the law's language was clear. The court reviewed the officer's actions and concluded that he made a mistake of law, which means he misunderstood the actual law regarding mud flaps. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress evidence gathered during the stop and to dismiss the case against Martinez. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the stop was not lawful and upheld the trial court's ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2015-446

S-2014-564

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2014-564, Christopher Knight appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence found during the search. One judge dissented. Christopher Knight was walking late at night in Ardmore, Oklahoma, when an officer saw him and decided to approach him. The officer, who was still in training, had been told by his supervisor to check on people out late at night. The officer stopped in front of Knight and asked if he could talk to him. Knight agreed to talk, and during their conversation, the officer asked if he could search Knight, to which Knight also said yes. However, the officer later admitted that Knight was not doing anything wrong at the time and there was no good reason for stopping him. Knight argued that the way the officer stopped him made him feel like he had to talk and that he was not free to leave. The court needed to decide if Knight was stopped in a way that violated his rights. The court found that it was not clear that Knight's encounter with the officer was truly voluntary. The State needed to show that Knight felt free to walk away, but there was no evidence that he could easily avoid the officer. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial judge that the evidence collected during the search should not be used against Knight. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling to suppress the evidence and ordered the case to go back for more proceedings, as long as they followed the decision made. One judge disagreed with this decision, believing that the officer should not be blamed for simply talking to Knight.

Continue ReadingS-2014-564

S-2013-322

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-322, Ridge appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the order that suppressed evidence obtained during the investigative detention. One judge dissented. The case began when a police detective observed what he thought was a drug deal involving Ridge. He saw Ridge in his car and another vehicle pull up next to him. Ridge got into the other car briefly, then returned to his own. Suspecting a drug transaction, the detective blocked Ridge's car and approached it. When he smelled marijuana, he questioned Ridge, who initially claimed the other person was just delivering puppy papers. Eventually, Ridge admitted there was marijuana under his seat. Ridge filed a motion to suppress the evidence from this encounter because he argued that the police did not have a good enough reason to stop him. Initially, a different judge denied Ridge's motion. However, after Ridge requested a reconsideration, the case was transferred to another judge, who granted the motion to suppress. The main issues on appeal were whether the new judge should have been able to review the case and whether the detective had enough reason to stop Ridge. The court ruled that the new judge was allowed to reconsider the motion. They stated that earlier rulings on suppression motions were not final and could be evaluated again. Regarding the stop, the court found that the detective did not have sufficient reason to detain Ridge. They stated that just observing Ridge getting in and out of a car was not enough to suspect him of criminal activity. Overall, the court agreed with the district court’s decision to suppress the evidence, meaning it could not be used in court against Ridge.

Continue ReadingS-2013-322

S-2013-103

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2013-103, Uriel Alajandro Lopez and Maria Magana appealed their conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling which granted a motion to suppress evidence. One judge dissented. Lopez and Magana were charged in McIntosh County after Trooper Koch stopped their vehicle. Before the trial started, they filed to suppress evidence related to the traffic stop and the search of their vehicle. The district court agreed and granted their motions, leading the state to appeal. The state argued two main points for the appeal. First, they believed the trooper had a valid reason to stop the vehicle, claiming that Magana broke traffic laws by following another vehicle too closely and failing to move for an emergency vehicle. However, the court found that the trooper's basis for the stop was questionable because the laws did not support his reasoning. The trooper said Magana was driving less than two seconds behind a truck, which he thought was unsafe. But he was unable to prove that this was a valid reason under the law. The rules of driving were not clear enough to justify his stop. The court noted that the trooper’s idea of a two-second rule was not mentioned in the traffic laws, which made it hard to understand if there was any real violation. The court also looked at a second reason the state provided, which was that the trooper had seen Magana not move to the left lane for an emergency vehicle. However, the trooper didn’t take any action based on this perceived violation when he stopped the car. Since this point wasn't strongly developed during the hearing, the court didn’t consider it either. Second, the state argued that searching the vehicle was legal because of signs of criminal activity and the consent given by both Lopez and Magana. But since the first argument about the stop was not valid, the search did not hold up in court. Therefore, the appeal was denied and the decision to suppress the evidence was upheld. In conclusion, the court agreed with the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress, stating that the trooper did not have a good reason for the stop. The opinion from the court was not published for public record, but it reinforced the importance of adhering to the rules of evidence and the proper procedures during traffic stops.

Continue ReadingS-2013-103

S-2013-127

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2013-127

S-2012-166

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingS-2012-166

S-2012-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-194, Campbell appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, meaning Campbell's charges were dropped. No one dissented. Here’s a summary of what happened: James Monroe Campbell was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the trial began, he asked the court to dismiss the case by filing a request called a Motion to Dismiss. During a hearing before the trial, the judge decided that the evidence against Campbell should not be used, and this meant the case was dismissed. The State of Oklahoma, unhappy with this decision, decided to appeal, which means they wanted another court to review what happened. They filed their appeal based on certain laws that say they have the right to challenge the dismissal of cases when it involves important evidence being excluded. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they claimed the judge made a mistake by dismissing Campbell's case because he believed Campbell broke the law by not staying entirely in one lane while driving. Second, they argued the judge was wrong because the police officer had a good reason to stop Campbell’s car in the first place. To decide if the original judge made a mistake, the court looked at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to pull Campbell over. A reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning the officer had a good reason to believe a law was possibly being broken. The officer in this case stated that he stopped Campbell because he saw Campbell's car touch the line marking the lane. However, when the judge looked closely at the evidence, including a video of the incident, she thought that Campbell was driving pretty straight and did not see enough evidence to support the claim that he was breaking any laws. The judge also mentioned that the officer’s concerns did not seem strong enough to justify the stop. Therefore, she decided to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence to support stopping Campbell's car. When reviewing the situation, the appeals court sided with the original judge's decision and agreed that there was no abuse of discretion, meaning they believed she made the correct choice based on the information available. The court also stated that since the issue of Campbell possibly driving under the influence wasn't raised during the earlier hearing, they could not consider that during the appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to suppress evidence and dismissed the charges against Campbell, which was a win for him.

Continue ReadingS-2012-194

S-2012-214

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-214, Nhanh Van Dang and Nhi Thi Nguyen appealed their conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision to suppress the evidence, meaning the charges against them could not proceed. One judge dissented. The case began when law enforcement stopped the vehicle driving by Dang and Nguyen. They were suspected of breaking traffic laws, but the court found that the officers did not have enough reason to pull them over. The original judge ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the stop, which led to the suppression of the evidence gathered afterward. The state tried to argue that the stop was justified because of alleged traffic violations. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision, saying the evidence did not clearly show that the officers had a good reason to stop the vehicle. Since the stop was deemed improper, the gathered evidence could not be used in court against Dang and Nguyen. Therefore, the appeals court confirmed that the right decision was made by the lower court in suppressing the evidence, reinforcing the idea that fair legal procedures must be followed.

Continue ReadingS-2012-214

S-2011-208

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2011-208, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision made by a Special Judge regarding the suppression of evidence connected to Shea Brandon Seals. In an unpublished decision, the court upheld the Special Judge's ruling, agreeing that there was not enough reason to stop Seals' vehicle. The court found that the evidence supported the decision that Seals did not break any traffic laws, and thus, the law enforcement officer did not have a valid reason to stop him. The State also tried to argue that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop, but this argument was presented for the first time during the appeal, so the court did not consider it. The decision to deny the State's appeal was supported by competent evidence and adhered to legal standards. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2011-208

F-2010-288

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.

Continue ReadingF-2010-288

S-2010-540

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2010-540, Cavner appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the district court's decision to suppress the evidence. One judge dissented. The case began when the State of Oklahoma charged Cavner with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol. He argued that the traffic stop was not justified because there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district court agreed to suppress the evidence but did not dismiss the case entirely. On appeal, the State argued that the district court made an error by suppressing the evidence. When reviewing these kinds of cases, the court looks at the facts presented and defers to the trial court's findings unless something is clearly wrong. It was nighttime when Deputy Yarber observed a vehicle in the parking lot of an abandoned grocery store. He noted that the car left the parking lot in a lawful manner as he and another officer approached. The deputy did not mention any specific criminal activity and had no reason to believe something illegal was happening. Another officer had previously looked into possible drug activity in the area, but that had not been reported recently. In such situations, officers are allowed to check on people they find in unusual circumstances. However, since the vehicle drove away from the parking lot before Yarber could approach, he needed to stop it on a highway, which changes the situation from a simple question into a detention, known as a traffic stop. The law requires that a traffic stop must be supported by something more than just a hunch or general suspicion. The court explained that deputies must have reasonable suspicion to make a legal traffic stop. They look for specific facts suggesting that a crime may be occurring, which was not the case here. The deputy did not have enough evidence or reasons to suspect that Cavner was committing a crime simply because he was in the parking lot of an abandoned store late at night. The court referenced a prior case to support its decision, comparing the circumstances to those in a previous ruling where a stop was also deemed unlawful due to lack of reasonable suspicion. In Cavner's case, the court ruled that the officers did not have enough evidence to justify the traffic stop. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's order to suppress the evidence gathered during the stop, meaning the evidence could not be used against Cavner. The decision highlighted the importance of having proper legal grounds for police actions, ensuring that citizens' rights are protected under the law.

Continue ReadingS-2010-540

S-2009-862

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing evidence. Margaret Ann Brumfield was also charged with the same crime in a companion case numbered S-2009-862, and the same ruling applied. The case began when Trooper Johnson stopped the vehicle driven by Mr. Brumfield for speeding and discovered he did not have a valid driver's license. Mrs. Brumfield was a passenger in the vehicle. During the stop, the officer suspected Mr. Brumfield was under the influence of a drug, so he had both Brumfields sit in the patrol car while he searched the vehicle. Initially, he found nothing, and he allowed them to leave. However, after listening to a conversation the couple had in the patrol car, he suspected there might be drugs under the passenger seat. When he searched again, he found methamphetamine. The State appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the officer did have the right to search the vehicle due to Mr. Brumfield’s behavior and suspected drug use. However, the court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that reasonable suspicion (which the trooper had) is not enough for probable cause. The initial search was not justified, leading to the suppression of the evidence found later. Thus, the court's final decision affirmed the district court’s ruling that the search was unreasonable, and therefore, the evidence obtained could not be used in court against the Brumfields.

Continue ReadingS-2009-862

S-2009-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.

Continue ReadingS-2009-858

F-2006-538

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-538, Manh Micahel Mach appealed his conviction for several drug-related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse three of the convictions and affirmed the others. One member of the court dissented. Mach faced multiple charges, including unlawful possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute, as well as failure to obtain a drug tax stamp, unlawful use of surveillance equipment, and possession of a firearm during a felony. He was sentenced to numerous years in prison and fines, with all sentences to be served one after the other. The court looked at several issues raised by Mach. First, they confirmed that he had waived his right to a jury trial knowingly. They also found that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop him, which led to a lawful search of his car after he consented. However, Mach's convictions for possessing cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute were seen as overlapping offenses. He was found guilty of only one violation for possessing these drugs for distribution, meaning the court reversed two of those drug convictions. The court also agreed with Mach that he was wrongly convicted for failing to obtain a tax stamp because there was no evidence presented about this charge. Thus, that conviction was reversed and dismissed. The evidence showed that Mach was guilty of using surveillance equipment to avoid police detection while selling drugs, so that conviction was affirmed. The court held that Mach's overall sentence was not excessive and within legal limits, leading to the conclusion that other convictions must remain as is. In summary, the court reversed and dismissed some convictions while affirming others based on their findings regarding the lawfulness of the search, evidence presented, and the nature of the offenses.

Continue ReadingF-2006-538

S-2005-890

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.

Continue ReadingS-2005-890

S-2005-840

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-840, #Ranney appealed his conviction for #driving under the influence and driving with a revoked license. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided to deny Ranney's motion to dismiss the State's appeal. The court remanded the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order that had previously granted Ranney's motions to suppress evidence and quash the charging information. #One judge dissented. The case began when Ranney was accused of hitting a sign in a convenience store parking lot while possibly being drunk. The police officer noticed things like the smell of alcohol and Ranney's slurred speech. Ranney admitted to drinking beer when the officer questioned him. At a preliminary hearing, Ranney tried to get his statements thrown out, but that motion was denied. Later, at a different hearing, Ranney asked again to have his statements and the charges dismissed. He argued he wasn't free to go when the officer spoke to him and that his statements were made because he felt pressured. He also claimed the officer didn’t have a good reason to come up and question him. The judge, after considering the situation, decided to grant Ranney’s request without explaining why. This left everyone confused about the reasons behind the decision. The State then asked the judge for a written explanation, but she didn’t respond. The State decided to appeal her decision, but Ranney argued that the appeal should be dismissed because there were no clear reasons from the judge about her ruling. While the court agreed there was a problem with the record, they didn’t think the State should be punished because it was mainly the judge’s fault for not providing explanations. So, the court ordered the case to go back to the lower court. They said the District Court should take away its previous decision and then handle Ranney's motions again, this time making sure to provide clear reasons for any new decisions.

Continue ReadingS-2005-840

M-2004-802

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2004-802, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Marijuana). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was stopped by a police officer early in the morning because his car was parked in a lot with its lights on, near a closed restaurant. The officer got suspicious due to a series of burglaries happening in the area recently. When the officer approached the car, it began to move. The officer then decided to stop the vehicle to ask what the appellant was doing there. During the trial, the appellant argued that the stop was illegal. He believed that the officer did not have enough reason to suspect that he was doing something wrong. The officer admitted during the hearing that he did not know for sure if the appellant was involved in criminal activity when he made the stop. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the officer did not have a good reason to think the appellant was doing anything suspicious. They pointed out that the appellant's actions could easily be seen as innocent. The conclusion was that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion, which is necessary to make a legal stop, and therefore the evidence collected after the stop should not have been used against the appellant. Ultimately, the court reversed the conviction, meaning that the case would not proceed further and the appellant's charges would be dismissed. One judge disagreed with the decision, arguing that the officer had good reasons to make the stop based on the circumstances around the time and location.

Continue ReadingM-2004-802

F 2000-341

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-341, Cortez Lamont Franklin appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. Cortez Franklin was found guilty after a trial in Oklahoma County. The jury sentenced him to twenty years in prison. He appealed, arguing that the trial court should have excluded evidence found during his arrest, claiming it violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. He also said the evidence was not enough to prove he had the drugs. The appellate court looked at the reasons for stopping Franklin. The judges found that the police did not have reasonable suspicion when they detained him. Because Franklin's detention was considered unreasonable, they stated that the drugs found during this unlawful detention could not be used as evidence. Since there was no valid evidence left to support his conviction, the court reversed the trial court's decision, meaning Franklin's case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges against him. They did not need to discuss Franklin's second point about the sufficiency of the evidence.

Continue ReadingF 2000-341