State v. Ramsey, No. S
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | JAMES F. LANE; CHARLES S. CHAPEL; RETA M. STRUBHAR |
| Citation | 1993 OK CR 54,868 P.2d 709 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Michael Don RAMSEY, Appellee. 93-0613. |
| Docket Number | No. S |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1993 |
Page 709
v.
Michael Don RAMSEY, Appellee.
Page 710
ACCELERATED DOCKET ORDER
Appellee, Michael Don Ramsey, was charged by Information in the District Court of Wagoner County, Case No. CRF-92-0139, with Counts I and II, Burglary of a Vehicle, Counts III and IV, Third Degree Arson, and Count V, Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. At the preliminary hearing held September 25, and November 20, 1992, Appellee's motion to suppress evidence and demurrer were sustained, and Appellant perfected this appeal.
This appeal was automatically assigned to the Accelerated Docket pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.1992, Ch. 18, App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Rule 11.2(a)(5). Appellee objected to the appeal alleging that certain documents were filed out of time, however, no motion to dismiss the appeal based on those grounds was filed. The propositions or issues were presented to this Court in oral argument October 28, 1993, pursuant to Rule 11.5(c). Appellant raised three proposition of error on appeal: I. The authority of railroad policemen to search and seize is a necessary and inherent part of the right to arrest granted by 66 O.S.1991, § 183; II. The court erred in suppressing evidence of seized property and statements made to railroad policemen; and III. The decision of the Trial Court was erroneous considering the amount of evidence presented, taken in the best light of the State.
On June 9, 1992, a burglary and arson of Union Pacific Railroad equipment utilized in repair and maintenance of railroad right of way, was committed in Okay, Oklahoma. The burglarized vehicles, at the time of the crimes, were not located on railroad property. An initial investigation was done by Special Agent Simmons, a railroad policeman. Located near the vehicles was the cover to a seat which fit a Ford Bronco seat. Approximately one-fourth ( 1/4) of a mile away, property stolen out of the utility vehicles was found laying in a bar ditch, near a place used as a dump by local residents. Found near the stolen goods was a water bill with Appellee's name and address.
On June 10, 1992, after locating Appellee's home (approximately 2 miles from the location of the stolen property) and learning that Appellee drove a Ford Bronco, Agent Simmons, accompanied by two other railroad policemen, went to Appellee's residence. All
Page 711
of the railroad policemen were wearing plain clothes and pistols in holsters. Upon identifying the Appellee, Appellee and an acquaintance at the residence were searched, taken to the railroad offices in Muskogee, and questioned. Both denied any knowledge of the crimes, but while at the railroad offices Appellee signed a consent to search without a warrant, authorizing the agents to search his home and vehicle. The men were returned to the residence in Okay where the agents searched the Appellee's vehicle, home and several outbuildings. Appellee was charged with the crimes and proceeded to preliminary hearing.Appellee moved to have any and all evidence obtained during the searches suppressed, alleging the agents had no jurisdiction to search Appellee, his vehicle or his residence. Additionally, Appellee claimed the consent form waiving the search warrant was signed under duress, in conjunction with the illegal detention and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omalza v. State, Nos. F-93-141
...has thrived with robust vitality in criminal trial practice. See e.g., Pierce v. State, 878 P.2d 369 (Okl.Cr.1994); State v. Ramsey, 868 P.2d 709 (Okl.Cr.1993); Berry v. State, 834 P.2d 1002 (Okl.Cr.1992). Indeed, in the heat of the trial before us, defense counsel demurred at the close of ......
-
Arganbright v. State, No. F–2012–1022.
...and giving intelligent effect to each. Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 17, 932 P.2d 22, 28; State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 7, 868 P.2d 709, 711. It is also well established that statutes are to be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their language. Wallace v. State......
-
Lozoya v. State, No. C-95-861
...P.2d 772, 775 (Okl.Cr.App.1962), reconciling provisions, rendering them consistent and giving intelligent effect to each. State v. Ramsey, 868 P.2d 709, 711 (Okl.Cr.App.1993). When Page 29 there is a conflict between various statutes applying to the same situation, the more specific of the ......
-
USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
...that of a private citizen. Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139-1140; see also State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 10, 868 P.2d 709, 712; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 9, 841 P.2d 591, ¶ 12 This Court's decision in Phipps is dispositive of the question certified.3 In......
-
Omalza v. State, Nos. F-93-141
...has thrived with robust vitality in criminal trial practice. See e.g., Pierce v. State, 878 P.2d 369 (Okl.Cr.1994); State v. Ramsey, 868 P.2d 709 (Okl.Cr.1993); Berry v. State, 834 P.2d 1002 (Okl.Cr.1992). Indeed, in the heat of the trial before us, defense counsel demurred at the close of ......
-
Arganbright v. State, No. F–2012–1022.
...and giving intelligent effect to each. Lozoya v. State, 1996 OK CR 55, ¶ 17, 932 P.2d 22, 28; State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 7, 868 P.2d 709, 711. It is also well established that statutes are to be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their language. Wallace v. State......
-
Lozoya v. State, No. C-95-861
...P.2d 772, 775 (Okl.Cr.App.1962), reconciling provisions, rendering them consistent and giving intelligent effect to each. State v. Ramsey, 868 P.2d 709, 711 (Okl.Cr.App.1993). When Page 29 there is a conflict between various statutes applying to the same situation, the more specific of the ......
-
USA v. Sawyer, No. CQ-2004-240.
...that of a private citizen. Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ¶ 10, 932 P.2d 1136, 1139-1140; see also State v. Ramsey, 1993 OK CR 54, ¶ 10, 868 P.2d 709, 712; Phipps v. State, 1992 OK CR 32, ¶ 9, 841 P.2d 591, ¶ 12 This Court's decision in Phipps is dispositive of the question certified.3 In......