Suppress Evidence Archives

S-2015-723

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 8, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-723, Alexander appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (marijuana), unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and public intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that sustained Alexander's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him. One judge dissented. The case started when a highway patrol officer saw two vehicles on the side of the road, one of which looked disabled. Instead of checking on the disabled vehicle, the officer decided to pull over a maroon car that was leaving the scene because it had a cracked windshield. Alexander was in the front passenger seat of the maroon car. When the officer asked for identification, Alexander admitted he did not have any. The officer said he would check Alexander's information in his cruiser for safety reasons. While talking to Alexander in the cruiser, the officer noticed he smelled alcohol on him and saw signs of slurred speech and slow movements. The officer found out that Alexander had an outstanding warrant and arrested him. Initially, there were inconsistencies in the officer's story about what happened during the stop. He claimed the smell of alcohol was evident when Alexander exited the car, but later changed his answers under questioning. During the hearing about Alexander's motion to suppress the evidence, the officer's actions came under scrutiny. The state argued that the stop was justified, and that finding the warrant should allow the evidence collected to be used. However, the district court felt the officer's actions were not good faith mistakes but rather improper. The officer had handcuffed Alexander and questioned him without informing him of his rights, which the court deemed as a significant violation of Alexander's rights. The higher court found the district court had properly assessed the facts and ruled in favor of Alexander. They determined that the illegal stop and the officer's methods were serious enough to dismiss the evidence gathered after the stop. Thus, the verdict of the trial court to suppress evidence and dismiss the case was upheld.

S-2012-554

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 12, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-553, Frank Lee Armstrong appealed his conviction for unlawful drug charges. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that suppressed the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle occupied by Armstrong and Sheila Carol Johnson. Johnson also appealed her conviction in a related case, S-2012-554. The court found that the law enforcement officers did not execute the search warrant in a timely manner as required, which led to the suppression of the evidence. The judge's determination was based on the conclusion that the search was not conducted immediately as directed by the issuing judge, and therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision, sustaining the motions to suppress. No dissenting opinion was filed.

F-2011-4

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 6, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-4, Dara D. Payton appealed her conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of deferment from the District Court. One judge dissented. Payton was found guilty after a bench trial, which is a trial without a jury. The judge decided not to give her a final judgment or sentence right away, instead deferring it for five years. Payton appealed this decision, raising three main points. First, she argued that her arrest should not have happened because it was made outside the officer's jurisdiction, and the officer did not follow the rules for making a citizen's arrest. Second, she claimed that she should not have to pay certain costs and fees because she relies only on disability benefits for her income. Third, she said the written order of deferment did not match what the judge said in court. The court found that Payton's arrest was legal. Even though the officer was outside his normal area, the court believed he was justified in his actions due to fresh pursuit, meaning he was actively following Payton because he saw her breaking the law. The judge stated that the officer followed Payton, observed her erratic driving behavior, and called for more help when Payton could not pass a sobriety test. The arrest was determined to be lawful under the circumstances. Regarding the costs and fees Payton questioned, the court said it could not decide the issue because she had not properly followed the procedures to dispute them. Payton did not request a hearing or show evidence about her financial situation to the court, making it unclear if the costs should be adjusted. For the written deferment order, the court acknowledged that it did not accurately represent what the judge had said. They decided to send the case back to the District Court to fix these errors so that the written order matched what the judge had pronounced in court, specifically that the deferment period would end on December 11, 2015, and that the supervision by the district attorney would only last for the first two years. In summary, while the court agreed with the deferment and found Payton's arrest valid, they also recognized the need to correct the written order to reflect the judge's original statements properly. The judge's conclusions about the case led to an affirmation of the deferment but a remand for the clerical corrections.

S-2011-208

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 29, 2011
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.

F-2008-1014

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 22, 2009
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1014, Marcus Durell Hooks appealed his conviction for trafficking in controlled substances, possession of an offensive weapon in the commission of a felony, and eluding a police officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but remand the case for correction of the Judgment and Sentence. One judge dissented. Marcus was found guilty by a jury on three counts. His main issues on appeal included claims of improper evidence use, insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentencing, prosecutorial misconduct, and errors related to jury instructions and sentencing fees. The court reviewed the propositions raised by Marcus and concluded that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion regarding the police checkpoint situation since the evidence causing the convictions was not a result of the checkpoint. The evidence showed that Marcus had joint control over the drugs and firearms involved in the case. About counsel's performance, the court found no effectiveness issues because the alleged errors did not affect the trial's outcome, nor did the sentencing appear excessively severe. The prosecutor's statements during the trial were also determined not to have harmed Marcus's case. Additionally, the court agreed with Marcus about some fees being improperly assessed but decided that overall, any errors did not combine to deny him a fair trial. Thus, while most of Marcus's complaints were rejected, the court ordered corrections related to the sentencing paperwork.