Source: http://www.monroe-associates.com/author/admin/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:31:00+00:00

Document:
Monroe & Keele, P.C., Author at Monroe & Keele, P.C.
Monroe & Keele, P.C. > Blog > Articles by: Monroe & Keele, P.C.
Author: Monroe & Keele, P.C.
Ann Keele had the pleasure of meeting Fred D. Gray, a prominent civil rights attorney who worked with Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, when she attended the ABA’s National Conference of Bar Presidents meeting in Vancouver on February 2, 2018.
Mr. Gray handled several major cases which led to the desegregation of the University of Alabama and Auburn, then later all public colleges and universities in the state, along with more than 100 local school systems.
Mr. Gray served in the Alabama legislature from 1970-1974. Although Mr. Gray is best known for his legal career, he began as a full-time preacher for Montgomery’s Newtown Church of Christ from 1957 until he moved to Tuskegee in 1973. After moving to Tuskegee, he helped organize the merger of the city’s black and white Churches of Christ in 1974.
Mr. Gray also represented several victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. In 1932, the United States Public Health Service began a study of the effects of untreated syphilis on more than 600 African American males. After the study became public in 1972, Gray filed a lawsuit against Alabama and the U.S. Public Health Service that was settled in 1975 for $10 million and medical treatment. He has been the moving force in the establishment of the Tuskegee Human and Civil Rights Multicultural Center, which serves not only as a memorial to the participants of the Study, but also educates the public on the contributions made in the field of human and civil rights by Native Americans and Americans of African and European descent.
At Monroe & Keele, P.C., the protection of civil rights are fundamental to our law firm. Our firm was founded to level the playing field. We are committed to protecting the rights of individuals who have been harmed by the misconduct of the government by its agents and institutions. We are a premier Tulsa civil rights law firm with considerable experience in state and federal courts.
Oklahoma law allows one to be charged with first degree murder, if death results during the commission of certain felony (regardless of their intent). This is referred to as the “Felony Murder Rule”. This rule covers any person committing or attempting to commit the underlying felony, along with any accomplices. This concept is referred to as “the felony murder rule”.
The Felony Murder Rule grew out of the following principle: one who is responsible for unintended death of another, during the perpetration or attempted commission of a felony, was guilty of murder. The threat posed by the commission of felonies warranted strict response and as a result, the threats serve as a justification for the harshness of the rule.
There are two critical elements of felony murder: commission of a felony, and death to the victim as a consequence of the defendant’s conduct in committing that crime.
The Felony Murder Rule does not require that any particular intent or mental state be established in order to convict the defendant of felony-murder. In addition, all co-felons participating in the felony may be convicted of murder where the conduct of any one of the participants causes death in the commission of the crime.
“Several points must be emphasized regarding the “any felony” language of section 701.8. First, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals announced in Barnett v. State, 2011 OK CR 28, ¶¶ 10-15, 32, 263 P.3d 959, 963-64, that it would no longer require the precedent felony to be an independent crime that was not included within the resulting homicide, and the Court abandoned the merger doctrine, which previously had restricted the crime of second degree felony murder.
In addition, the “any felony” language raises the specter of a forger being convicted of murder if he accidentally trips his victim and causes the victim to strike his head and suffer death. Many jurisdictions have circumscribed the scope of the “any felony” rule by judicial decision. See, e.g., People v. Washington, 62 Cal. 2d 777, 402 P.2d 130 (1965); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486, 137 A.2d 472 (1958). The restriction of the felony-murder rule to those crimes which evince some potential for peril to others is more in accordance with the common law development of the doctrine than it is an unfettered interpretation of the “any felony” provision. Indeed, at common law the felony-murder rule was in fact more narrow and less arbitrary because, at the time the doctrine developed, the few existing felonies were themselves punishable by death. W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law§ 71, at 545-48 (1972).
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has afforded explicit recognition to this limiting principle. In Wade v. State, 1978 OK CR 77, 581 P.2d 914, the defendant committed the felony of possession of a loaded pistol in an establishment where beer or alcoholic beverages were consumed, in contravention of 21 O.S. Supp. 1976, §§ 1272.1 – 1272.2. In affirming the defendant’s conviction for felony-murder in connection with the homicide of a woman by the defendant, the Court articulated a requirement which must link the underlying felony to the homicide: “The felony must be inherently or potentially dangerous to human life, inherently dangerous as determined by the elements of the offense or potentially dangerous in light of the facts and circumstances surrounding both the felony and the homicide.” Id. ¶ 4, 581 P.2d at 916.
Thus, the Court has adopted an approach to the question of whether the particular felony at issue might form the basis for a felony-murder charge that requires an examination of the circumstances in which the crime was committed, as well as of the crime itself. As an abstract proposition, some felonies, such as burglary or robbery, are inherently dangerous to life, while others, such as larceny or false pretenses, are not. But the facts of the particular case, including the circumstances under which the felony was perpetrated, must be examined in order to determine whether even a nonperilous felony is committed in such a way as to create a potential danger to life.
If you have questions regarding the Felony Murder Rule in Oklahoma, or any other crime, contact our Tulsa criminal defense attorneys at (918)592-1144 for a consultation. Our firm has been protecting the rights of Oklahomans for over 30 years.
Effective November 1, 2017, a new left lane restriction for vehicles driven on a two lane divided highways was put into place. The new restriction states that a vehicle may not be driven in the left lane, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle, other than in situations where traffic conditions or road configurations require the use of the left-hand lane in order to maintain safe traffic conditions.
Violations of the left lane restriction may result in a ticket, which are about $235, according to the Tulsa World.
 Upon a roadway which is divided into four or more lanes, a vehicle shall not impede the normal flow of traffic by driving in the left lane shall not be driven in the left lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle; provided, however, this paragraph shall not prohibit driving in a the left lane other than the right-hand lane when traffic conditions or, flow, or both, or road configuration, such as the potential of merging traffic, require the use of lanes other than the right-hand the left lane to maintain safe traffic conditions.
“The Tulsa Police Department has been inundated with questions about the amended Oklahoma left lane law, which was primarily intended for highway application. We would like to clear up some confusion on the law and clarify what actions can be made by Tulsa Police Officers.
Municipal Officers cannot write citations for state traffic laws when there is not a municipal ordinance mirroring the same law. If need be, municipal officers can enforce the state law by an arrest but those incidences would be rare.
The statement was reported here.
If you have questions regarding this law, or have questions regarding traffic violations in Tulsa, contact our office for a consultation. As we have expressed in prior blog posts, it is important to understand the consequences of a ticket prior to paying the fine.
Every year, the Tulsa County Bar Association pairs with Family & Children’s Services to challenge its members to adopt a family in need. This year, our firm adopted a family. We are so pleased to be able to give back to our community.
Monroe & Keele, P.C., is a leading Tulsa law firm providing experienced legal representation in the areas of criminal defense, family law, and civil rights law.
Both of our partners are AV-rated* by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest possible rating, attesting to their legal experience, ethics and reputation. To learn more about their professional qualifications, please click on the links provided below.
Whether you are seeking representation for a criminal defense, family law, or civil rights matter, we are here for you. Contact us today online or by telephone at 918-592-1144 to arrange your initial consultation with an experienced lawyer in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Ann Keele was awarded the Attorney of the Year Award on November 2, 2017 by the Oklahoma Bar Association Family Law Section. The Oklahoma Bar Family Law Section became a Section in 1986. In 2016, the Section had over 1,100 members, the largest membership of any Oklahoma Bar Association Section according to the 2016 annual report found here.
Similar to a DUI charged against an adult, an underage DUI criminalizes the actions of a driver who operates or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. However, underage DUI by someone under 21 involves two violations: illegal consumption/possession of alcohol and driving while intoxicated. As the State would like to deter such behavior, violations involving underage DUI in Oklahoma are subject to strict laws and penalties.
Much like driving under the influence, underage drinking and driving is a significant problem in the United States. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among youth ages 15 to 20. The rate of fatal crashes among alcohol-involved drivers between 16 and 20 years old is more than twice the rate for alcohol-involved drivers 21 and older.
Exhibits evidence of the combined influence of alcohol and any other intoxicating substance.
the requirement, after the conclusion of the mandatory revocation period, to install an ignition interlock device or devices, as provided by subparagraph n of paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 991a of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes, for a period of not less than thirty (30) days.
In addition, a third or subsequent conviction may be punished by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00), or by requiring the person to attend and complete a treatment program, as recommended by the assessment required pursuant to subparagraph c of paragraph 2 of subsection D of this section, or by both.
The court may assess additional community service hours in lieu of any fine specified in this section.
the continued installation of an ignition interlock device or devices, at the expense of the person, as provided in subsection D of Section 6-212.3 of this title, after the mandatory period of cancellation, denial, or revocation for a period as provided in paragraph 3 of subsection A of Section 6-212.3 of this title.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the filing of charges pursuant to Section 761 or 11-902 of this title when the facts warrant.
The term “revocation” includes the cancellation or denial of driving privileges by the Department.
If you have questions regarding Underage DUI in Oklahoma, contact one of our Tulsa DUI lawyers for a consultation.
Last week, we discussed SB 643 also known as the Impaired Driving Elimination Act 2, which was signed into law in June and will become effective November 1, 2017. We discussed that, among other changes, the law’s most substantive changes are (1) creation of the Impaired Driver Accountability Program and (2) the criminalization of refusing to take a breathalyzer test. This week, we will focus on the new law’s impact on refusing a breath test following an arrest for DUI.
In all, fifty states, an “implied consent” law exists when it comes to administering breath tests, because states consider driving a privilege and not a right. While there have always been stiff penalties for refusing to submit to testing under the implied consent laws in Oklahoma, it has not been a separate criminal offense. The new law making refusal a misdemeanor is in line with a Supreme Court decision last year. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 S.Ct. __ (2016), individuals challenged their respective states’ statutes criminalizing the refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. The Supreme Court upheld a State right to criminalize such a refusal–applying the “search incident to lawful arrest” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The Court reasoned that breath tests involve minimal physical intrusion. These tests reveal a limited amount of information (the amount of alcohol on an individual’s breath), are used to find something that is routinely exposed to the public, and participation in a breath test unlikely will cause greater embarrassment than beyond the arrest itself. In light of this Supreme Court decision, the new state law is likely to pass constitutional muster-at least as it relates to making refusal to submit to breath testing a misdemeanor.
However, the law attempts to remove the role of DPS and the current ability to challenge the administrative revocation/suspension of an individual’s license following an arrest for DUI. A constitutional challenge has already been filed against the bill, alleging the law will remove administrative safeguards designed to protect individuals who have be wrongfully accused.
The final version of the bill can be viewed here.
This blog post is not intended to be a full summary of the new Oklahoma DUI law. If you have questions regarding the new law, contact one of our Tulsa DUI lawyers for a consultation regarding your specific facts and circumstances.
In June 2017, Governor Mary Fallin signed SB 643, amending the DUI law in Oklahoma. The changes in the bill, referred to as the “Impaired Driving Elimination Act 2” will go into effect on November 1, 2017. There are many small changes to the DUI law contained in the Act, but two very substantive changes will go into effect: (1)Requirement of interlock devices/creation of the Department of Public Safety Impaired Driver Accountability Program, and (2)criminalization of refusing to take a breathalyzer test. This blog post will focus on the requirement of interlock devices and the creation of the Department of Public Safety Impaired Driver Accountability Program.
Interlock devices are not new in Oklahoma. Ignition interlock systems are devices used to prevent a vehicle from starting if the driver has been drinking alcohol. The device uses a built-in breathalyzer and set to a pre-programmed amount. If the driver blows into the device and exceeds that amount, the interlock locks the vehicle’s ignition. The cost of an Interlock device can quickly add up with install fees, monthly monitoring, etc. The current law requires interlock devices for first time offenders when he/she has a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or more (aggravated driving under the influence). The current law also provides provisions for more severe interlock restrictions for subsequent DUI offenses. However, the new law effective November 1, 2017 will require interlock devices for conviction (or plea) of all DUI offenses.
Offenders will have the option of entering the Impaired Driver Accountability Program, or challenging the DUI charge through the court process. The IDAP program requires strict compliance with rules, but will allow a clean record following completion of the program. Challenging the DUI charge through the court process could result in longer suspensions.
A $200 fee is established per participant.
The measure establishes a fee for a restricted driver’s license at $50 in addition to the IDAP program fee of $200 which will be deposited into the Public Safety Restricted Revolving (245) Fund.
This blog post is not intended to be a full summary of the new Oklahoma DUI law. If you have questions regarding the new law, contact one of our Tulsa DUI lawyers for a consultation regarding your specific facts and circumstances. Monroe & Keele, P.C. has defended the rights of Oklahomans for over 30 years. Contact our Tulsa criminal defense attorneys today.
There are two sets of courts for criminal prosecutions in Oklahoma: state and federal courts. While the courts share power, each has its own system, courthouse, prosecutors, and judges. Federal judges are nominated by the president (approved by the senate), and serve in that capacity for life. Federal prosecutors are skilled and have more resources at their disposal than their state counterparts. Facing charges in federal court is significantly more serious than any criminal offense filed in state court, both in how the case will be tried and in the level of penalties that can be imposed. In a report issued United States Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report released last year, detailing the convictions during FY2012, 97% of all federal offenders pleaded guilty.
You may ask, what makes a crime federal rather than state? In short, federal crimes are those that break the federal legal code and state crimes break state laws. However, in a large number of cases, there is concurrent jurisdiction for the same crime, meaning the charges can be brought in either court. For example, possession of marijuana is a violation of both Oklahoma state and federal law. Technically, it can be charged in Oklahoma state court or federal court. However, you will not see many federal agencies pursuing investigations or arrests of a small amount of marijuana. Drug trafficking cases with large quantities of illegal drugs account for a significant percentage of federal cases, and defendants prosecuted federally for drug cases account for a large portion of inmates in federal correctional facilities. Of the 84,360 federal criminal cases in which the offender was sentenced in fiscal year 2012, 30% were for drugs.
One other component to most federal criminal prosecutions is the requirement that the crime in question impact interstate commerce. Congress is granted the broad authority to regulate interstate commerce, which includes criminal activities that have a “substantial impact” on interstate commerce. While there has been a rapid expansion of what substantially impacts interstate commerce over the last fifty years, the Supreme Court did put a limit on Congress’ use of the commerce clause in the United States v. Lopez. The Court held that Congress overreached in passing the Gun-Free School Zones Act because the possession of a gun near a school zone was a local matter.
If you have questions regarding federal or state charges in Oklahoma, contact our Tulsa criminal defense attorneys by phone at (918)592-1144 for a consultation.
In this post, we will examine the legal standard involved in civil forfeiture cases when drugs are found in close proximity to firearms. Civil Forfeiture is a legal process through which the state or federal government first confiscates and then seeks to permanently seize private property from an individual. This private property can be cash, bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, or other personal property. Civil forfeiture actions in Oklahoma are most often connected to drug-related arrests under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. These civil forfeiture statutes allow the government to seize property when there is a connection between the property and the illegal activity or substance.
Oklahoma statutes authorize forfeiture of weapons when they are “available for use in any manner to facilitate a violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act.” The relevant question that follows: what does it mean to “facilitate a violation”? In order to examine this issue, we will examine a case that involved drugs found in close proximity to firearms.
In the case discussed above, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found there was not a sufficient connection between the firearms and drugs in order to justify forfeiture of the firearms. However, whether the property is being used to facilitate a criminal act will be a very fact specific analysis and the outcome may vary based on just a relatively small difference in facts. If you have questions regarding civil forfeiture in Oklahoma, contact our office to speak with one of our Tulsa civil rights attorneys. You can contact us by phone at (918)592-1144 or contact us online.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.