*1 PYLE, Appellant, Lester Earl Oklahoma, Appellee.
The STATE of
No. F-80-87. Appeals of Oklahoma. of Criminal
Court
April 1982.
Rehearing May Denied 1982. Barr, Norman,
Joel W. for Gen., Cartwright, Atty. Jan Eric Rozia Gen., Marie McKinney, Atty. Asst. Oklaho- City, appellee. ma OPINION CORNISH, Judge: Pyle Lester Earl Rape tried for in Degree the First in Case No. CRF-79-96 in the District Court of County. Cleveland jury returned a guilty verdict of punishment (5) years imprison- set at five ment. 11, 1979,
On at approximately Ms. D. and her date were re- turning to City party Oklahoma from a driving Norman. Ms. D. was the car. She pulled over to the side of the road. There ice in stopped the area where she the car became stuck. When got her date out of the car he fell and broke his ankle. Ms. D. then help. left the vehicle to seek street, As she walked appel- down the stopped his truck and asked her if she help. needed asked him She to take her to However, telephone. got when she truck the took her to a deserted area north of Thunderbird Lake. He forced knifepoint her at to undress and then he raped her twice.
1391
approximately
At
the same The affidavit
provided
also
the
day,
appellant
the
took Ms. D. home and
with
cause to believe that the evi
anyone
told her that if she told
what hap-
requested
dence
to be seized would
pro
be
pened, he would hurt her children. During
prosecution
bative
the
of the case. See
time
appellant
the
that the
was with Ms.
State,
Bollinger v.
556 P.2d
D., he
her
told
his name and where he
1976). We find that the search of
ap
the
worked.
pellant’s body pursuant to the valid search
warrant was reasonable. The State did not
victim,
The
reported the crime at about
appellant’s
violate the
Fourth Amendment
11,
p.
supplied
3:00 m.
offi-
right to be free from unreasonable search
description
appellant,
cials with a
of the
his
and seizures.
California,
See Schmerber v.
given
truck and the
he
name
had
her. She
384 U.S.
This case is picture from identified line-up from bar, Cole. At the State obtained a search two days after the offense. There was a warrant to obtain hair samples, discrepancy description blood sam between her initial ples appellant. regarding height however, and saliva from the weight, she affidavit articulated sufficient underlying opportunity had a limited to observe facts to standing establish cause to believe in a position. defendant At no that the had committed crime. time did she fail to identify protection Further, personal that her identi- privacy victim testified and dignity was based in court by fication of the defendant unwarranted intrusion the State. during the offense. The justice on her observance We held that could best be served if required that the in-court identi- above facts indicate first to obtain and independently reli- analyze samples body fication was based on an taken from the identification, which was victim able source of and the scene of the crime. Aftér properly jury’s accomplished, admitted for the considera- this is the State must demon- *3 Brathwaite, v. tion. Manson U.S. strate to a at an evidentiary See (1977). hearing L.Ed.2d that cause exists to be-
lieve that
there is a rational connection
joining the samples
possession
within the
Ill
and the specimens sought
appellant complains
that
the trial
Only
defendant.
then did we consider
testimony
court admitted
that was incom
sufficiently
cause to be
established
petent,
and immaterial. No au
irrelevant
to override the
pro-
Fourth Amendment’s
support
thority
proposition.
is cited to
this
tections.
Therefore,
only
this Court will
review this
assignment of error to determine whether
In the instant case the State failed to
deprived
any
funda
guidelines
meet
established in Cole.
rights. Dick
mental
v.
curring in results:
In Cole v.
1979), this Court considered the balance to
be struck between the need to ana State’s speciments
lyze from those accused of crim
inal conduct and the Fourth Amendment’s