Fun in Oklahoma

[Thornlocke]

I live in Oklahoma and around the middle of October I was stopped at an unmarked checkpoint off of the main road in Pawnee county. After taking my license and insurance they asked me to step out of my car and when I asked them if there was a problem they replied "We've had a lot of problems with drug activity in this area". They did find me in posession of a water pipe and rolling papers. However, I was not issued a ticket. Instead the officer gave me one week to come up with information on dealers in Pawnee county and in return he said that he would not turn my case into the DA. Here in lies the problem. I emailed the officer with information about a meth lab down the street from my house and yet Saturday I received a letter Saturday that I was supposed to be in court the previous thursday. I then callled the DA's office and explained my situation and their response was to turn myself in. I was under the impression that checkpoints had to be posted (the officers didn't even have their lights on) and I had to be issued a ticket to be summoned to court. Is this true?

 

[HomeGuru]

I live in Oklahoma and around the middle of October I was stopped at an unmarked checkpoint off of the main road in Pawnee county. After taking my license and insurance they asked me to step out of my car and when I asked them if there was a problem they replied "We've had a lot of problems with drug activity in this area". They did find me in posession of a water pipe and rolling papers. However, I was not issued a ticket. Instead the officer gave me one week to come up with information on dealers in Pawnee county and in return he said that he would not turn my case into the DA. Here in lies the problem. I emailed the officer with information about a meth lab down the street from my house and yet Saturday I received a letter Saturday that I was supposed to be in court the previous thursday. I then callled the DA's office and explained my situation and their response was to turn myself in. I was under the impression that checkpoints had to be posted (the officers didn't even have their lights on) and I had to be issued a ticket to be summoned to court. Is this true?

**A: there is more to this story......

 

[JETX]

I was under the impression that checkpoints had to be posted (the officers didn't even have their lights on) and I had to be issued a ticket to be summoned to court. Is this true?

Your 'impression' is not correct.
As for the notice to court... show up in court and ask them to show where you were 'noticed'. Wanna' bet they can show it??

 

[HomeGuru]

JETX, you mean to say that the checkpoints do not have to have flashing neon lights and orange barricades.........?

 

[Thornlocke]

fun in OK

I guess what I really want to know is if they can summon you to court without ever issuing you a citation with a court date and your signature on it. And I have been told by several people that in order to run a checkpoint it has to be either posted in the paper or signs posted prior to the checkpoint otherwise it's entrapment. And no, HomeGuru, that is the entire story.

 

[JETX]

I guess what I really want to know is if they can summon you to court without ever issuing you a citation with a court date and your signature on it.

Yes. There are lots of occasions that could warrant such a summons.

And I have been told by several people that in order to run a checkpoint it has to be either posted in the paper or signs posted prior to the checkpoint otherwise it's entrapment.

ROTFLMAO!!!
Entrapment?? So, how exactly does their NOT notifying you of their actions induce you into breaking the law where you wouldn't normally do so???

entrapment
n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the "criminal." Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-called "stings" in which undercover agents buy or sell narcotics, prostitutes' services or arrange to purchase goods believed to be stolen.

So, who's idea was it for you to possess the "water pipe and rolling papers", yours or the police??

And as long as the traffic checkpoint was being equally applied to everyone on that road at that time..... it is NOT discrimation, profiling or any other improper application.

In 'BRADLEY DON CROWELL, Appellant -vs- STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee
Case No. M-98-1427', the Oklahoma appeals court ruled:
There is no requirement, despite Appellant's claims to the contrary, that the State must notify the public of the roadblock, and conduct the roadblock according to a specified, written plan, in order for the roadblock/check point to be constitutionally valid. The roadblock was properly established and conducted according to all constitutionally required guidelines. All parties agree that the stated purpose of the checkpoint was to conduct a safety check and that safety checks were conducted. All vehicles proceeding through the checkpoint were stopped.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/2000/&invol=2000OKCR3

Also: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/2000/&invol=2000OKCR13

 

[bigdreams11]

When they asked you to step out of the car did you think of telling him, you had the right to not do so and not consent to a search of you vehicle? Even if he had physically ripped you out of the car and found the contraband, the case would almost deffinatly be dismissed in a suppression hearing, unless the officer put in the police report that he smelled alcohol or marijuana. What was the basis of the check point? In the case of The Common Wealth vs. Hector Rodriguez (September 13,1999 - January 18, 2000) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that road blocks set up by athorities to detect and deter trafficking of illegal narcotics was Unconstitutional. They also said that absent of emergency or imminent threat to the lives and safety of the public, roadblocks set up to interdict contraband are unconstitutional. If the roadblock was set up as a check point to detect drunk drivers then it would be constitutional since drunk drivers are an imminent threat to the lives and safety of the public. I don't know what the basis of the check point was other than you saying that the police officer told you to exit the vehicle and the reason being "We've had a lot of problems with drug activity in this area". If the officer saw nothing in plain veiw, nor smelled anything he believed to be alcohol or drugs, and you were not visibly impaired then there would be no probable cause search your vehicle without consent from you. The officer can also search you and the vehicle for weapons if he fears for his safety but unless he stated that in the police report then the judge will most likely not believe him. Your best bet would have been to state to the officer that your rights gaurenteed to you by the fouth amendment gave you the right to privacy and if you were not under arrest then he could not restrict your free movement and you did not have to exit the vehicle. Since you did exit the vehicle he had the right to search your person for officer safety but I'm not quite sure he had to right to search your car without consent or probable cause. Try and find out what the basis of the road block was and speak with an attorney.

 

[JETX]

Your post is so full of incorrect crap... it is hard to know where to start.

When they asked you to step out of the car did you think of telling him, you had the right to not do so and not consent to a search of you vehicle?

Of course, that is plain stupid. If a person refuses to exit their vehicle, they will be arrested for failure to obey a lawful order. And then they will be removed from the vehicle.

Even if he had physically ripped you out of the car and found the contraband, the case would almost deffinatly be dismissed in a suppression hearing, unless the officer put in the police report that he smelled alcohol or marijuana.

There is no way you can say that without knowing the facts.... and we don't know them.

What was the basis of the check point?

There doesn't have to be a 'basis'....

In the case of The Common Wealth vs. Hector Rodriguez (September 13,1999 - January 18, 2000) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that road blocks set up by athorities to detect and deter trafficking of illegal narcotics was Unconstitutional.

First, that was a Massachusetts court ruling... not the US Supreme Court. That means the citation you provide does NOT affect the actions of the Oklahoma situation the OP describes.
Also, in that case.... the STATE court ruled that within the narrow specifics of THAT traffic roadblock were not sufficient to support the introduction of evidence.

They also said that absent of emergency or imminent threat to the lives and safety of the public, roadblocks set up to interdict contraband are unconstitutional.

And of course, that is NOT what the court said. The court said:
"We conclude that this roadblock violated art. 14 and that the stop and seizure of the defendant's vehicle was unconstitutional. Absent an emergency or imminent threat to the lives and safety of the public, roadblocks to interdict contraband violate art. 14."

I don't know what the basis of the check point was

And with that one little statement... your entire 'defense house of cards' just collapsed!!!

 

[bigdreams11]

Your post is so full of incorrect crap... it is hard to know where to start.


Of course, that is plain stupid. If a person refuses to exit their vehicle, they will be arrested for failure to obey a lawful order. And then they will be removed from the vehicle.


The 4th amendment gaurentees all people the right of privacy, and the prevention of search and seizure without, probable cause, a warrant signed by a judge, or consent from the individual. If an officer stops a vehicle for a non-criminal infraction they cannot just order the individual to exit their vehicle unless they have probable cause that there are drugs/alcohol in the car, or they fear for their safety or the safety of others. If the individual is not under arrest and the police have no probable cause they cannot restrict the individuals free movement. If the police physically remove the person from the vehicle and make a search and seizure under the circumstances I have mentioned then the use of evidence obtained is unconstitutional. If the police want to arrest the person for failure to obey a lawful order for refusing to exit their vehicle and the officer had no probable cause or fear for safety then the charges almost always be dismissed.

 

[JETX]

The 4th amendment gaurentees all people the right of privacy, and the prevention of search and seizure without, probable cause, a warrant signed by a judge, or consent from the individual.

Damn, I hate idiots who try to quote the Constitution when they clearly have never read it... and certainly don't understand it.

Here is what the Fourth Amendment really says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If an officer stops a vehicle for a non-criminal infraction

See, there you go trying to spin this into something you DIDN'T say. Your post was a very short, without qualification, "When they asked you to step out of the car did you think of telling him, you had the right to not do so...."
Now you are adding the condition of this being a 'non-criminal infraction'.
Further, where did you get ANY idea that there wasn't some kind of "criminal infraction" in this post?? The mere fact that the poster didn't state such doesn't mean it didn't happen. A good attorney should be able to anticipate the things that were NOT said.... usually due to the bias of the speaker.

they cannot just order the individual to exit their vehicle unless they have probable cause that there are drugs/alcohol in the car, or they fear for their safety or the safety of others.

WRONG again. There are LOTS of perfectly valid reasons why an officer can instruct someone to exit a vehicle..... and have it be a lawful order.

If the individual is not under arrest and the police have no probable cause they cannot restrict the individuals free movement.

WRONG again. For example, I guess you have never heard of an officer handcuffing a suspect for his own safety??

If the police physically remove the person from the vehicle and make a search and seizure under the circumstances I have mentioned

Where did you mention any 'circumstances'??? The ONLY relevant circumstances to this thread are those made by the OP. Your 'other circumstances' (even invisible ones) are not relevant.

then the use of evidence obtained is unconstitutional. If the police want to arrest the person for failure to obey a lawful order for refusing to exit their vehicle and the officer had no probable cause or fear for safety then the charges almost always be dismissed.

ROTFLMAO!!!!
I love it when someone says....
But if the circumstances were completely different than what they really are..... "then the charges almost always will be dismissed'".
And of even more relevance..... and accuracy... "If the OP hadn't been there at the time... they wouldn't have to post to this forum".

 

[bsokee]

To Thornlock

Welcome to Oklahoma!!!! I guarantee you if you live or pass through OK, you better be clean, cause they will somehow get you for something, no matter what! Hope you have a super attorney, cause the system, especially east of OKC, are dying to get ya! You know, you can't even by Sudafed over the counter, cause they think your running a Meth Lab, & OK is probably the worst place to live for people with allergies! So, I hope your court exp. turns out as interesting, but better than the one I sit in on!! Good Luck!

 

[bigdreams11]

Damn, I hate idiots who try to quote the Constitution when they clearly have never read it... and certainly don't understand it.

Here is what the Fourth Amendment really says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


See, there you go trying to spin this into something you DIDN'T say. Your post was a very short, without qualification, "When they asked you to step out of the car did you think of telling him, you had the right to not do so...."
Now you are adding the condition of this being a 'non-criminal infraction'.
Further, where did you get ANY idea that there wasn't some kind of "criminal infraction" in this post?? The mere fact that the poster didn't state such doesn't mean it didn't happen. A good attorney should be able to anticipate the things that were NOT said.... usually due to the bias of the speaker.


WRONG again. There are LOTS of perfectly valid reasons why an officer can instruct someone to exit a vehicle..... and have it be a lawful order.


WRONG again. For example, I guess you have never heard of an officer handcuffing a suspect for his own safety??


Where did you mention any 'circumstances'??? The ONLY relevant circumstances to this thread are those made by the OP. Your 'other circumstances' (even invisible ones) are not relevant.


ROTFLMAO!!!!
I love it when someone says....
But if the circumstances were completely different than what they really are..... "then the charges almost always will be dismissed'".
And of even more relevance..... and accuracy... "If the OP hadn't been there at the time... they wouldn't have to post to this forum".

JETX...I will not argue with you my post was wrong in many areas. However as far me never reading the U.S. Constitution you are wrong. As for not understanding it, I believe I do have a good amount knowledge as to issues that it concerns. As for getting an idea that no criminal infraction had been committed, I based my opinion strictly on the facts that the poster provided. I am very well aware that they may not be exactly what occurred, but it was all they posted and I have my opinion on the information they provided. As for an officer hand-cuffing a person for officer safety without arresting them... Yes I have heard of this but from the information that was provided did not warrant it. I know I was wrong on a lot of things I may have said and should have evaluated the situation a lot deeper than I actually did before posting my opinion. On one last note, I do agree with you that YES if the op had not been there, they would not be posting on this forum. I do not condone drug use or anything to do with illegal narcotics, but I do believe that the rights of the citizens of this great country are being infringed upon and violated everyday. We as American citizens, need to look at both sides of the issues that occur in legal situations. I know I based my opinion on only the information that the OP provided us but that was only because we were not supplied with both sides of the story. It would be great if everyone with a legal issue would post the Police report and their side of the story, but we all know that will most likely never happen.