In Tulsa, Oklahoma; a pedestrian is not legally required to produce and hand over state-issued identification to a police officer during a casual or consensual encounter. This is not an absolute right, as the legal obligation to identify yourself hinges entirely on the nature of the police interaction.
Opting for a bench trial, where a judge solely presides over and decides a case without a jury, can offer significant strategic advantages in certain legal situations. This alternative to a traditional jury trial is often chosen for its efficiency, reliance on legal expertise over emotional appeals, and its suitability for complex legal arguments.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma; a pedestrian is not legally required to produce and hand over state-issued identification to a police officer during a casual or consensual encounter. This is not an absolute right, as the legal obligation to identify yourself hinges entirely on the nature of the police interaction.
The Fifth Amendment is a fundamental safeguard for the individual against the power of the state. But it's not a magic wand to avoid any and all uncomfortable questions in a legal setting. It is a specific and vital protection against being forced to be a witness in your own criminal downfall, and nothing more.
A significant misperception exists surrounding the criminal charge of drug trafficking in Oklahoma. The critical element that escalates a charge from simple possession to the much more severe offense of trafficking is not proof of sale, distribution, or transportation. It is purely the weight of the substance found in a person's possession.
At its core, the rule against hearsay is designed to ensure that evidence presented in court is reliable, credible, and can be tested for its truthfulness. Ultimately, the hearsay rule and its exceptions represent a careful balancing act. The goal is to filter out unreliable gossip and second-hand accounts while still allowing for the admission of evidence that, despite being hearsay, carries strong indicators of trustworthiness.
We have seen recently how having too low a bond allowed defendants with long violent criminal records to get back out on the street, only to commit more crimes and in some cases the death of innocent people. Judges have a difficult decision in balancing the constitutional rights of a defendant, who is innocent until proven guilty,
What chance does the average person have if someone as smart, experienced, and savvy as Ret. General Flynn can be leveraged into pleading guilty? The facts speak for themselves: 29% of all DNA exonerations involved a false confession. If you are outraged by the FBI techniques used on Ret. General Flynn, then be just as outraged these same techniques are used on a daily basis by almost every police force in this country. It is time for a change.
Since the Supreme Court unanimously decided the Eighth Amendment applies to the States and not just Federal cases, prohibiting excessive fines and fees especially when State agencies seek to seize property or other assets from individuals charged or convicted of a crime, Boeheim Freeman Law has been able to reduce or eliminate over $100,000 in fines for our clients.
The case before the Supreme Court, Timbs v. Indiana involved the seizure of a $42,000 Land Rover SUV from Tyson Timbs, who was arrested in 2015 for selling heroin to undercover police officers. He pled guilty and was sentenced to one year of house arrest and five years of probation. The Court suggests that it became excessive when the State of Indiana seized his Land Rover, which was purchased with his father's life insurance payout, not with the proceeds of drug sales. The State claimed that they could seize the vehicle because it had been used to commit a crime.
At Boeheim Freeman Law, we have been moving the courts for Rule 8 Hearings on all plea deals. This is a hearing where the Judge inquires of the Defendant what physical injuries or ailments would prevent them from working. The Judge also inquires as to the Defendants ability to pay fines and costs due to indigence and pre-existing financial obligations. It is then determined whether, under the circumstances, the Defendant can pay or the fines would be considered excessive on-going punishment.
Local government uses fines and fees as a means to raise revenue, and that creates a perverse conflict of interest between the bureaucracy and residents of the community. Timbs v. Indiana points out how ridiculous overly burdensome fines and civil asset forfeiture can be when abused. Many times the fines and the confiscation of property only hurts the families left behind when a defendant gets convicted and goes to prison. This inevitably propagates a cycle of crime, when a family is left with very few options and bills to pay.
The Supreme Court and Justice Ginsberg have spoken: Excessive fines are unconstitutional, and civil forfeiture is an additional fine to those who are convicted. If you have been served with a civil forfeiture in connection with a criminal case, please give Boeheim Freeman Law a call at 918-884-7791 and let us help you fight for your constitutional rights.
