by
34 Comments

After reportedly crashing into another car at 156 MPH while driving under the influence, resulting in the death of a young woman back in November, lawyers representing former Raiders receiver Henry Ruggs III are trying to exclude an intoxicated blood sample. According to the Associated Press, Ruggs' lawyers argue that police "lacked basis" for obtaining a warrant to gather the WR's blood without his consent...
quote:

“True probable cause did not exist,” his attorneys said via ESPN.com. “The mere fact of Mr. Ruggs’s involvement in a fatal vehicle collision does not, in itself, give rise to probable cause to believe he was driving under the influence of alcohol.”
(The Spun)
Filed Under: NFL

Comments

34 Comments
user avatar
Grasping for straws here.
Reply16 months
user avatar
And that’s why Lawyers should all die in a fire.
Reply16 months
user avatar
I'm a law-and-order guy, but defense attorneys (many of whom seem sleezy) do perform an important overall function for the system -- they make the gov't prove its case. If they didn't exist, anyone could get railroaded. But please note, I think far too many defense attorney lie and throw garbage against the wall, hoping anything will stick. But they are necessary for the system to work.
16 months
user avatar
So do you want a garbage man to defend you if you get hit with some BS charge from a dirty cop?
16 months
user avatar
I know everyone want to jump up and down and scream "Just look what he did!!" Isn't that probable cause enough, but it's an attorney's job to poke every conceivable hole in the DA's case. He's just representing his client.
Reply16 months
user avatar
Ruggs identifed as sober
Reply16 months
user avatar
so what your saying is him being absolutely blitzed had nothing to do with the crash? Jesus Christ thats bad
Reply16 months
user avatar
What a piece of shite.
Reply16 months
user avatar
dirtbag attorneys
Reply16 months
user avatar
Screw all of that!!! How about be a freaking MAN and admit what you did was wrong! Take your punishment and ask GOD for forgiveness.
Reply16 months
user avatar
Honestly, unless a blood sample being taken is standard practice in instances such as this, he has a pretty decent argument.
Reply16 months
user avatar
In the state of Louisiana it is standard procedure and mandatory by the at fault driver to take a blood sample in the event of a fatal crash. If they refuse they are detained and a warrant is issued for said sample. Usually the warrant is granted within 30 minutes or so with new courtroom software.
16 months
user avatar
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. NEXT!
Reply16 months
user avatar
Maybe they can argue he was just a passenger in the car, or not in it at all.
Reply16 months
user avatar
I know its a lawyers job to defend their client, but damn I don't know if I could do that from a morality standpoint .
Reply16 months
user avatar
I am not sure what the laws are in Nevada but you can get disbarred for incompetency in your profession and I suppose not trying to get it thrown out could be considered incompetence (maybe). You can choose not to take a scumbag clients but it is almost impossible to build a practice if you don't take difficult cases (people who you think are guilty as sin). If you do want to actually get innocent people off that are in terrible situations, you probably have to take some scumbag clients to build a practice where you have the opportunity to defend innocent people in those situations. I don't envy defense attorneys but having them do stuff like this may be a necessary evil to protect people from a justice system that screws stuff up all the time.
16 months
user avatar
I’ve always thought the same thing. But lawyers like this only care about money, they have no morals. In college my professor brought in Jose Baez, the lawyer who defended Casey Anthony, to speak to us. The mindset of that guy was pretty sick. This was all 2 months after he got her off.
16 months
user avatar
I would assume that is SOP for a lawyer, but he's a true POS who deserves swift justice for his actions.
Reply16 months
user avatar
A true pos
Reply16 months
user avatar
"Was there any evidence that warranted further investigation into Mr. Ruggs BAC?" "I figured the dead body and the fact he was driving 156 mph were enough, but I'm sure there was more"
Reply16 months
user avatar
I love that attorneys will say the most outlandish shite to get their clients off.
Reply16 months
user avatar
isn't that their job? otherwise, what's their use?
16 months
user avatar
What are we supposed to do? Roll over?
16 months
user avatar
The lawyer would likely be disbarred if he didn't try this.
Reply16 months
user avatar
Why? On what basis is he saying there was no basis to test his blood alcohol level? Is he just throwing shite on the wall?
16 months
user avatar
There’s no judge on earth that would be stupid enough to consider this.
Reply16 months
user avatar
Judge Trudy White says hello.
16 months
user avatar
Have you ever followed just about ANY of the Orleans Parish Criminal Judges?
16 months
user avatar
Bammer gonna bammer.
Reply16 months
user avatar
Lawyers gonna lawyer, simpleton
16 months
user avatar
What is Brad Lester up to these days? Makin any more amateur video to make auburn proud?
16 months
user avatar
Clown world
Reply16 months
Popular Stories