Re: Reggie Williams, anyone?
He is an interesting option, but I would rather have D.J. Hackett. Hackett is really good when healthy and in the WCO. He has burned the Rams many times and is still verry young with good size. Put his size and ability in the WCO and he is a nice compliment across Avery
Re: Reggie Williams, anyone?
What I don't understand is how one is charged with DUI and possession of marijuana and then magically all the charges are dropped. I understand that he was under the legal limit, but what happened to his pot?
Baffling.
Re: Reggie Williams, anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bar-bq
What I don't understand is how one is charged with DUI and possession of marijuana and then magically all the charges are dropped. I understand that he was under the legal limit, but what happened to his pot?
Baffling.
My guess* is this.
They pulled him over for drunk driving. Since it was proven he wasn't drunk it basically proves he was pulled over for no reason. Without a reason, or probable cause, the Judge can't legally consider any stuff the police found after that. Unless maybe it's a dead body.
If the cops, however, had pulled him over and charged him with reckless driving, illegal lane change or speeding... and then smelled the weed giving them probable cause... I think the pot would have been admissible because the reason for pulling him over would stick.
But actually the big picture is the little amount of weed that was found was a class b misdemeanor... for a regular person it would be a minor slap on the wrist... for a celebrity... they walk.
I am all for bringing him and Hackett in for a test run.
*This guess is subject to some AV smack down since he is actually a lawyer. I just watch a lot of tv. :D
Re: Reggie Williams, anyone?
Rambunctious, that is exactly what happened. Says a few articles covering such. He was pulled over on suspected drunk driving (wonder what made them think he was driving drunk though eh) and he basically tested out to a .05 where the limit where he was was .087. They found a very small ammount of marijuana in the center console. But basically, since he tested out below the limit, and that was the reason for his pullover, than all other offenses must be void.
What I am still trying to break down is, and maybe some attourney can help answer this one; the article goes as follows:
HOUSTON (AP)—A judge dismissed DWI and possession of marijuana charges against free-agent receiver Reggie Williams on Friday.
Online Harris County records show both charges were dismissed. No reasons were given for the dismissals on the county Web site.
Both charges were Class B misdemeanors and carried maximum sentences of six months in jail.
Williams was arrested about 2 a.m. on Feb. 27 on Houston’s southwest side after officers smelled alcohol on his breath and a “strong odor” of marijuana in his vehicle. Police reported finding a small amount of marijuana in the console during a search of the vehicle.
According to a statement from EAG Sports Management, which represents Williams, he had a .05 blood alcohol content when his blood was drawn. In Texas, the legal limit is .087.
“With no reason for stopping Williams and his blood alcohol limit under .08 BAC, there were no charges to be made and they were dismissed,” the statement said.
Alright;
1) First off, how did the officers smell his breath while he was driving? (or I am missing something)
2) If it is basically the law that if you are falsely pulled over for a DWI that courts rule other charges cannot be sustained, how did this get to court? I believe that in most DWI cases, they would attempt to breathalizer you on the scene to read your level, or if a tool is not available, take you to a station to be tested. If this is the case, and they tested......."0.05, Okay, he's not legally drunk, so we cannot press through with DWI charges or the Marijuana, because we shouldn't have pulled him over in the first place."
- I am just confused on all levels of this case. Whether he got pulled over, or if he was just walking around? If he was walking around, than how and or why did they get to his vehicle to inspect it as well? If he tested below the limit, how and why did this get to a court in the first place? If he was driving in a manner that would indicate a drunken state, than he would have been charged for that still, and all charges would have been upheld in court.
So from this we can conclude, that he wasn't driving in a poor way, he wasn't legally intoxicated, and he had to deal with some really dumb police officers. I kind of feel bad for the waste of time that Williams and the Court had to deal with.
Re: Reggie Williams, anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rambunctious
My guess* is this.
They pulled him over for drunk driving. Since it was proven he wasn't drunk it basically proves he was pulled over for no reason. Without a reason, or probable cause, the Judge can't legally consider any stuff the police found after that. Unless maybe it's a dead body.
If the cops, however, had pulled him over and charged him with reckless driving, illegal lane change or speeding... and then smelled the weed giving them probable cause... I think the pot would have been admissible because the reason for pulling him over would stick.
But actually the big picture is the little amount of weed that was found was a class b misdemeanor... for a regular person it would be a minor slap on the wrist... for a celebrity... they walk.
I am all for bringing him and Hackett in for a test run.
*This guess is subject to some AV smack down since he is actually a lawyer. I just watch a lot of tv. :D
No, that sounds about right.
I was not aware of the pot. That puts me back on the "I'd probably pass on him" side of the issue.
Re: Reggie Williams, anyone?
As another attorney chiming in, it doesnt sound right to me. The test is whether the cops had probable cause to pull him over, not whether he ultimately turned out to be over the limit. If they had probable cause, then the search is valid on the weed, even if the DUI is dismissed because it turned out he was under the limit. It may well be that the amount of weed was such a small amount that the police dismissed the charge (ie small misdemeanor amount).
Think of it this way. The cops have a valid warrant to search your house for stolen property. They dont find any stolen property, but they find a kilo of cocaine on your dining room table. That cocaine will be admissable, especially to the extent that its in plain sight of the officers.
ramming speed to all
general counsel
