search waiver in Oklahoma

1983In Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921), the Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures applies strictly to cases in which there is governmental action.

1983In Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921), the Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures applies strictly to cases in which there is governmental action.

1999Tomlin v. State, 1994 OK CR 14, ¶ 16 , 869 P.2d 334, 338 .

1999Tomlin v. State, 1994 OK CR 14, ¶ 16 , 869 P.2d 334, 338 .

1994See, e.g., Brecheen v. State, 732 P.2d 889, 897 (Okl.Cr. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 909 , 108 S.Ct. 1085 , 99 L.Ed.2d 244 (1988). [41] Garcia, 734 P.2d at 823 ; Nealy, 636 P.2d at 382 . [42] Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69, 85 (Okl.Cr. 1994). [43] 12 O.S. 1981 , § 2803(3), Williamson, 812 P.2d at 403-404 ; Lamb, 767 P.2d at 890 ; Spuehler, 709 P.2d at 204 . [44] Miranda warnings should be given before a search waiver is valid.

1994See, e.g., Brecheen v. State, 732 P.2d 889, 897 (Okl.Cr. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 909 , 108 S.Ct. 1085 , 99 L.Ed.2d 244 (1988). [41] Garcia, 734 P.2d at 823 ; Nealy, 636 P.2d at 382 . [42] Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69, 85 (Okl.Cr. 1994). [43] 12 O.S. 1981 , § 2803(3), Williamson, 812 P.2d at 403-404 ; Lamb, 767 P.2d at 890 ; Spuehler, 709 P.2d at 204 . [44] Miranda warnings should be given before a search waiver is valid.

1994See, e.g., Brecheen v. State, 732 P.2d 889, 897 (Okl.Cr. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 909 , 108 S.Ct. 1085 , 99 L.Ed.2d 244 (1988). [41] Garcia, 734 P.2d at 823 ; Nealy, 636 P.2d at 382 . [42] Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69, 85 (Okl.Cr. 1994). [43] 12 O.S. 1981 , § 2803(3), Williamson, 812 P.2d at 403-404 ; Lamb, 767 P.2d at 890 ; Spuehler, 709 P.2d at 204 . [44] Miranda warnings should be given before a search waiver is valid.

1994See, e.g., Brecheen v. State, 732 P.2d 889, 897 (Okl.Cr. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 909 , 108 S.Ct. 1085 , 99 L.Ed.2d 244 (1988). [41] Garcia, 734 P.2d at 823 ; Nealy, 636 P.2d at 382 . [42] Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69, 85 (Okl.Cr. 1994). [43] 12 O.S. 1981 , § 2803(3), Williamson, 812 P.2d at 403-404 ; Lamb, 767 P.2d at 890 ; Spuehler, 709 P.2d at 204 . [44] Miranda warnings should be given before a search waiver is valid.

1994Case v. State, 519 P.2d 523 (Okl.Cr.1974), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 965 , 97 S.Ct. 2922 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1977).

1994Case v. State, 519 P.2d 523 (Okl.Cr. 1974), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 695 , 97 S.Ct. 2922 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1977).

1994It is unclear from the record whether Miranda warnings were given before the search waiver was obtained. [45] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (defendant's statement about location of victim's body violated Sixth Amendment right, but Court ruled that the body would have inevitably been found and hence found no error). [46] Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1136-37 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 349 , 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993); Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1086 (Okl.Cr. 1984), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1246 , 104 S.Ct. 3524 , 82 L.Ed.2d 8

1994It is unclear from the record whether Miranda warnings were given before the search waiver was obtained. [45] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (defendant's statement about location of victim's body violated Sixth Amendment right, but Court ruled that the body would have inevitably been found and hence found no error). [46] Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1136-37 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 349 , 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993); Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1086 (Okl.Cr. 1984), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1246 , 104 S.Ct. 3524 , 82 L.Ed.2d 8

1994It is unclear from the record whether Miranda warnings were given before the search waiver was obtained. [45] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (defendant's statement about location of victim's body violated Sixth Amendment right, but Court ruled that the body would have inevitably been found and hence found no error). [46] Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1136-37 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 349 , 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993); Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1086 (Okl.Cr. 1984), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1246 , 104 S.Ct. 3524 , 82 L.Ed.2d 8

1994It is unclear from the record whether Miranda warnings were given before the search waiver was obtained. [45] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (defendant's statement about location of victim's body violated Sixth Amendment right, but Court ruled that the body would have inevitably been found and hence found no error). [46] Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1136-37 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 349 , 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993); Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1086 (Okl.Cr. 1984), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1246 , 104 S.Ct. 3524 , 82 L.Ed.2d 8

1994Case v. State, 519 P.2d 523 (Okl.Cr.1974), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 965 , 97 S.Ct. 2922 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1977).

1994Case v. State, 519 P.2d 523 (Okl.Cr.1974), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 965 , 97 S.Ct. 2922 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1977).

1994It is unclear from the record whether Miranda warnings were given before the search waiver was obtained. [45] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (defendant's statement about location of victim's body violated Sixth Amendment right, but Court ruled that the body would have inevitably been found and hence found no error). [46] Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1136-37 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 349 , 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993); Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1086 (Okl.Cr. 1984), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1246 , 104 S.Ct. 3524 , 82 L.Ed.2d 8

1994It is unclear from the record whether Miranda warnings were given before the search waiver was obtained. [45] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (defendant's statement about location of victim's body violated Sixth Amendment right, but Court ruled that the body would have inevitably been found and hence found no error). [46] Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1136-37 (Okl.Cr. 1993), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 349 , 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993); Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080, 1086 (Okl.Cr. 1984), cert. denied 467 U.S. 1246 , 104 S.Ct. 3524 , 82 L.Ed.2d 8

1985Ill Finally, appellant contends that the arrest was unlawful under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), which holds that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest.

1985Ill Finally, appellant contends that the arrest was unlawful under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), which holds that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home to make a routine felony arrest.

1981Thus, it appears from the totality of the circumstances that the search of the defendant’s residence and the seizure of the shirt therein was constitutional and within the guidelines as outlined in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

1981Thus, it appears from the totality of the circumstances that the search of the defendant’s residence and the seizure of the shirt therein was constitutional and within the guidelines as outlined in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

1977It thus follows that the search waiver obtained two hours later while defendant was in custody and after he had been advised of his Miranda rights and of his right to refuse to consent to the search, was not “fruit of the poisonous tree” under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).

1977It thus follows that the search waiver obtained two hours later while defendant was in custody and after he had been advised of his Miranda rights and of his right to refuse to consent to the search, was not “fruit of the poisonous tree” under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).

1971In Wattenburg v. *1381 United States, 388 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1968), the defendants Wattenburg and Owens were charged with illegally cutting and stealing Christmas trees from the United States.

1971As we stated in Lindsey v. State, Okl.Cr., 488 P.2d 935 (1971): “A person who is the victim of a search and seizure directed against him has standing to assert his rights protecting him against an unreasonable search and seizure, as it is not necessary to have legal title in the premises searched or property seized.” As explained in Jones v. United States, supra, and Lindsey v. State, supra, the State cannot seek to prove possession by defendant of items discovered in a search and then claim he has no standing to object to the search.

1952In support of this they city Penrod v. State, 38 Okla.

1950An employee of a public hotel or rooming house cannot complain of an unreasonable search in such building, where there is no invasion of his private room.” Hood v. State, 90 Okla.

1950An employee of a public hotel or rooming house cannot complain of an unreasonable search in such building, where there is no invasion of his private room." Hood v. State, 90 Okla.

1950Cr. 377 , 269 P. 389 , wherein this court said: “The right to object to a search as in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is personal, and cannot be made by one whose private rights have not been invaded.

1950Cr. 377 , 269 P. 389 , wherein this court said: "The right to object to a search as in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is personal, and cannot be made by one whose private rights have not been invaded.

1942The recent statement of Mr. Justice Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court is applicable to this case when he stated: “It is a commonplace in the administration of criminal justice that the actualities of a long trial are too often given a meretricious appearance on appeal; the perspective of the living trial is lost in the search for error in a dead record.” Glasser v. United States, 62 S. Ct. 457, 473 , 86 L.