Suppression Motion

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

F-2018-104

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-104, Dameon Tyrese Lundy appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Dameon Tyrese Lundy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for having drugs and cash that suggested he intended to sell drugs. He was sentenced to sixty years in prison and had to pay a fine. He was acquitted of another charge related to money from drug sales. Lundy had two main arguments in his appeal. First, he said the trial court made a mistake by not allowing his lawyer to suppress evidence found by the police. He argued that the police did not have the right to approach him outside a bar. However, the court found that the police were allowed to speak to him in a public place and had a good reason to suspect him because they could smell marijuana and he acted suspiciously. So, they decided there was no mistake by the trial court. Secondly, Lundy claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he intended to sell drugs. His defense was that the drugs were for personal use, but the court said that a reasonable jury could think that Lundy was selling drugs due to the large amount of different drugs and cash he had. This means that the evidence was enough to support his conviction. Lundy then argued that his sentence was too harsh. He pointed out that the laws changed after his crime, meaning someone charged now would face a lower maximum sentence. However, the court stated that the new laws couldn’t be applied to Lundy's case because his crime was committed before the law changed. They concluded that the sentence was proper because of his past convictions. In the end, the court upheld the original decision from the district court, meaning Lundy will have to serve his sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2018-104

F-2016-1015

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **DERRECK RYAN GRAY,** Appellant, Case No. F-2016-1015 **V.** **STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** Appellee. --- **SUMMARY OPINION** **LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE:** Appellant Derreck Ryan Gray was convicted by jury of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine) With Intent to Distribute (Count I) and Obstructing an Officer (Count II) in the District Court of Payne County. The jury recommended a sentence of twenty-four years for Count I and one year in jail with a $500 fine for Count II. The trial court sentenced Appellant according to the jury's recommendations, though it reduced the fine in Count II to $100. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant appeals, raising one proposition of error: 1. The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during what he contends was an illegal seizure. After reviewing the details of the case and the arguments presented, we conclude that no relief is warranted. During the traffic stop for a violation, neither the driver nor Appellant had valid driver's licenses. Consequently, the vehicle was to be impounded. Upon concluding the traffic stop, Appellant was free to leave, but officers instructed him to exit the vehicle to inventory it. As he did, Officer Cluck observed a plastic bag drop to the floor. When instructed not to touch it, Appellant ignored this and attempted to flee with the bag. Officer Cluck arrested Appellant for Obstructing an Officer, which permitted retrieval of the bag. Subsequent analysis of the bag revealed it contained methamphetamine. Appellant asserts that the seizure of the bag was improper; however, he does not dispute the legality of the traffic stop or the imminent impoundment. His attempt to flee with the bag constituted obstruction, providing probable cause for his arrest. This established legal basis nullifies his argument against the seizure of the evidence. In reviewing the trial court's actions regarding the suppression motion, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court's denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed, as Appellant's conduct provided justification for his detention and the subsequent evidence seizure, which does not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. **DECISION** The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. --- **APPEARANCES AT TRIAL** Royce Hobbs, Stillwater, OK, Counsel for Defendant **APPEARANCES ON APPEAL** Robert W. Jackson, Norman, OK, Counsel for Appellant Laura Austin Thomas, Payne County District Attorney **OPINION BY:** LUMPKIN, P.J. **Concur:** LEWIS, V.P.J.; HUDSON, J.; KUEHN, J.; ROWLAND, J.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1015

F-2009-177

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-177, Jesse James Stout appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child and exhibition of obscene materials to a minor child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm some convictions and reverse others. One judge dissented. Jesse James Stout was found guilty by a jury of eight counts of sexual abuse of a child and three counts of exhibiting obscene materials to a minor. He received a total sentence of many years in prison for these convictions. The sentences for some counts were served one after another, which is called consecutive sentencing. Stout raised several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial court should have let him stop talking to the police when he asked for a lawyer. However, the court determined that his request was not clear enough, and since he had not been charged with the crimes at that time, his rights had not been violated. Second, he argued that having eight counts of sexual abuse was wrong when it should have been fewer counts. But the court found that the State had clearly explained all the charges, and the jury was told to look at each claim separately. Third, Stout contended that the trial court made a mistake by changing the charges at the end of the trial. The court allowed the State to change the information for the three counts of showing obscene materials. The trial court said this change would not hurt Stout's defense because the new charge carried a lesser sentence. However, the court found that this amendment was unfair and hurt Stout’s ability to defend himself properly because it changed the nature of what he was being charged with. As a result of these findings, the court affirmed the convictions related to the eight counts of sexual abuse, but reversed the convictions for the three counts of exhibiting obscene materials and ordered a new trial for those counts. Some judges agreed with the decisions while one judge disagreed with the reversal of the three counts.

Continue ReadingF-2009-177

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