Riddle v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Owens v. City of Hominy

    Case No. 04-CV-668-TCK-PJC (N.D. Okla. Apr. 10, 2006)

    See Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1167 (10th Cir. 2005). Under Oklahoma law, probable cause has been found to exist for an arrest for public intoxication where the suspect had blood shot eyes and the odor of alcohol on his breath, Smith v. State, 695 P.2d 1155 (Okla.Crim.App. 1986); where an officer detected a strong odor which he associated with alcoholic beverage and noticed that suspect's speech was slurred, Staub v. State, 526 P.2d 1155 (Okla.Crim.App. 1976); and where defendant's walk was unsteady, his speech was slurred, and his breath smelled strongly of alcohol, Riddle v. State, 506 P.2d 1405 (Okla.Crim.App. 1973). There is no requirement that an officer administer a breathalyzer or other formal test in order to support a finding of probable cause, in part because the "symptoms of intoxication are a matter of common knowledge and understanding."

  2. Salt Lake City v. Carner

    664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983)   Cited 39 times
    Recognizing import of accusatory statements

    The test suggested by the court in that case comports with our decision of State v. Shuman, Utah, 639 P.2d 155 (1981) which held that a Miranda warning was not necessary when police were investigating whether a crime had been committed at all. In Riddle v. State, Okla. Cr. 506 P.2d 1405 (1973), a defendant was held not to be entitled to a warning of his constitutional rights prior to performing the coordination tests which led to his arrest for the offense of public drunk. The court determined that the requests made by the police officer were non-custodial in nature.

  3. Utzman v. State

    568 P.2d 641 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 2 times
    Describing shoplifting in presence of a peace officer

    Further, he watched her pay for the item bearing the substituted price tag. This was sufficient to provide him with reasonable cause to believe that a crime had been committed in his presence. See, Avants v. State, Okla. Cr. 544 P.2d 539 (1976) and Riddle v. State, Okla. Cr. 506 P.2d 1405 (1973). Therefore, we find the defendant's first assignment of error to be without merit.

  4. Avants v. State

    544 P.2d 539 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    " The State urges the facts in the instant case are analogous to the case of Riddle v. State, Okla. Cr. 506 P.2d 1405 (1973), wherein it states: "Under the facts of the instant case, we believe there was reasonable cause for the police officer to conclude the defendant was drunk in a public place and arrest defendant for this offense.

  5. Worchester v. State

    536 P.2d 995 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 13 times
    Finding a "technical violation" of section 894 by written communication was harmless error

    The defendant's third contention is without merit as we find the trial judge correctly adhered to the procedure regarding proof of former convictions in the second stage of the trial. See, Riddle v. State, Okla. Cr. 478 P.2d 357 (1970), appeal after remand, 506 P.2d 1405 (1973). The defendant's fourth contention is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.