Poe v. Oklahoma City

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Poe v. Oklahoma City

1971 OK CR 30, 483 P.2d 1190

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 6, 1971

DocketA-15460

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1971 OK CR 30 (Poe v. Oklahoma City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poe v. Oklahoma City, 1971 OK CR 30, 483 P.2d 1190 (Okla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Judge,

Tracy Coy Poe, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and con *1191 victed in the Municipal Court of Record, City of Oklahoma City, for the offense of Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia; his punishment was fixed at sixty (60) days in the county jail and a fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The defendant alleges four propositions of error, one of which contains sufficient merit to be discussed in this opinion. The defendant contends the arrest was unlawful and the subsequent search illegal. The record reveals some inconsistency in the testimony of the arresting officer as to the basis of the arrest. This Court will not assume the role as a trier of facts which is the forum of the trial court to resolve inconsistencies. We are of the opinion that the defendant’s objection to the subsequent search is well taken. The defendant was arrested and removed to an adjacent parking lot. He was informed that if he did not consent to a search of his automobile, it would be impounded and a search warrant obtained. The defendant then consented to the search and certain items were obtained from the automobile. We cannot uphold the State’s contention that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search. We are of the opinion that threatening to impound a vehicle and to obtain a search warrant is coercion. It is a well established rule that a waiver obtained by coercion is unlawful.

The case is accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court is directed to conduct a hearing to determine the legality of the arrest and in the event the court determines the arrest to be valid, the trial court is to exclude any evidence obtained as a result of the search of the defendant’s vehicle in the subsequent trial. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

BRETT, P. J., concurs in results. NIX, J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUSSEY, Judge,

Tracy Coy Poe, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and con *1191 victed in the Municipal Court of Record, City of Oklahoma City, for the offense of Possession of Gambling Paraphernalia; his punishment was fixed at sixty (60) days in the county jail and a fine of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The defendant alleges four propositions of error, one of which contains sufficient merit to be discussed in this opinion. The defendant contends the arrest was unlawful and the subsequent search illegal. The record reveals some inconsistency in the testimony of the arresting officer as to the basis of the arrest. This Court will not assume the role as a trier of facts which is the forum of the trial court to resolve inconsistencies. We are of the opinion that the defendant’s objection to the subsequent search is well taken. The defendant was arrested and removed to an adjacent parking lot. He was informed that if he did not consent to a search of his automobile, it would be impounded and a search warrant obtained. The defendant then consented to the search and certain items were obtained from the automobile. We cannot uphold the State’s contention that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search. We are of the opinion that threatening to impound a vehicle and to obtain a search warrant is coercion. It is a well established rule that a waiver obtained by coercion is unlawful.

The case is accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court is directed to conduct a hearing to determine the legality of the arrest and in the event the court determines the arrest to be valid, the trial court is to exclude any evidence obtained as a result of the search of the defendant’s vehicle in the subsequent trial. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

BRETT, P. J., concurs in results. NIX, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1971 OK CR 30, 483 P.2d 1190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poe-v-oklahoma-city-oklacrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack