Sherman arrested for DUI

[Threedee]

I blame the Niners

I blame Bevell.

 

[SuperSonic67]

He was pulled over at 2am, not 4am per every report…booked into KC jail anywhere from 4:27am to 4:51am depending on reports. I’m not seeing anywhere that he overrode an ignition lock device? Where is that being reported?

 

[SuperSonic67]

…also, I distinctly remember him telling us all after the last incident (quite defiantly and angrily I might add) that “he refused to be defined by one mistake!”

Well now it’s two my friend…not good.

 

[SeaWolv]

Not that it's an important factor, but he was pulled over at 4am, booked into jail at 4:30.

Where did you get your source? As far as I know, they haven't released any details beyond the initial reports and likely won't for some time.

This says just after 2am:
https://sports.yahoo.com/richard-sherman-remains-custody-following-155835146.html#:~:text=In March 2022, Sherman pleaded,period has not yet expired.

 

[AK49Hawk]

SI is reporting that Sherman was pulled over for speeding, 79 in a 60, he then told Troopers that he had 2 margaritas, at which time he agreed to a voluntary test, It doesn't say what his BAC was. Troopers say his eyes were bloodshot and watery and he "smelled of intoxicants."
Sounds like a Bellevue District Court Judge made the determination to arrest Sherman on probable cause, also sounds like Sherman might have a lot of wiggle room in this case.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

Isn't this his second DUI offense?

Including the porch?

 

[sc85sis]

Not that it's an important factor, but he was pulled over at 4am, booked into jail at 4:30.

Where did you get your source? As far as I know, they haven't released any details beyond the initial reports and likely won't for some time.

@BlueTalon is correct. The roadside breathalyzer is optional. The one at the station is not, considered implied consent, and carries some pretty severe consequences for refusing to take it. So which one he refused is critical to his case.

If he refused a breathalyzer at the station, he's likely toast. They can reinstate his old sentence which includes 90 days in jail, consider this event a 2nd offense that carries a mandatory 45 days in jail, and he's in the pokey for half the summer, possibly lose his job at Amazon Prime. It would be incredibly stupid of him. He'd be better off trying to pass the test.

But on the other hand, Geno physically refused to take a blood test, struggled with the officers, and he got off scot-free, so who knows.

Geno did take the blood test. That’s why he was cleared. It showed below the limit.

 

[SeAhAwKeR4life]

He's probably an alcoholic. Non alcoholics rarely get multiple DUIs. It happens they may get one now and then, but repeat offenders are nearly always problem drinkers. I hope this penalty is heavy on helping Richard and less so on punishing him, but he's got to face consequences of some type, because he needs help, and because Drunk driving is such a danger to innocent bystanders, so I hope the system works for him. I don't have a lot of faith it will, but I hope so.

Maybe he can get on one of the therapeutic "drug court" programs, and get help for his drinking. That'd be best for him and all concerned IMO. Throwing a guy in jail doesn't help the problem. I don't think a short mandatory jail term is so bad, but locking a guy up for a few years does nothing to alleviate the problem over the long term.

 

[RiverDog]

Geno did take the blood test. That’s why he was cleared. It showed below the limit.

Not willingly. They had to get a court order then get him to a hospital to have his blood drawn. And given how much time elapsed between the time he was pulled over and when the sample was eventually drawn, he certainly was above the legal limit.

They didn't need a positive BAC, at least not for a reckless or negligent driving charge. It's just one piece of evidence. Given his resistance, threats against the officers, the fact that he was going 96 mph in a 60 mph zone, and driving erratically and he didn't get charged with anything?

Geno lucked out.

 

[kidhawk]

Not that it's an important factor, but he was pulled over at 4am, booked into jail at 4:30.

Where did you get your source? As far as I know, they haven't released any details beyond the initial reports and likely won't for some time.

@BlueTalon is correct. The roadside breathalyzer is optional. The one at the station is not, considered implied consent, and carries some pretty severe consequences for refusing to take it. So which one he refused is critical to his case.

If he refused a breathalyzer at the station, he's likely toast. They can reinstate his old sentence which includes 90 days in jail, consider this event a 2nd offense that carries a mandatory 45 days in jail, and he's in the pokey for half the summer, possibly lose his job at Amazon Prime. It would be incredibly stupid of him. He'd be better off trying to pass the test.

But on the other hand, Geno physically refused to take a blood test, struggled with the officers, and he got off scot-free, so who knows.

I read a few different articles from local news there.

This one says he was arrested at 3:38 and booked at 4:51

Ex-Seahawks star Richard Sherman arrested by Washington State Patrol for suspected DUI

komonews.com

This one says he was stopped around 2 and booked at 4:51 so they are not really consistent on when he dealt with police on the street but both have the same booking time.

Former Seahawk Richard Sherman arrested for suspicion of DUI

Former Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman was booked for investigation of driving under the influence early Saturday morning, King County court records show.

www.seattletimes.com

As far as the legalities of Washington DUI laws, I did put the disclaimer that I don’t know how it works there at all so I appreciate the information from those who do know. I also still think he was wisely hedging his bet by not taking test until getting to the station in hopes his alcohol level goes down.

Either way, if he drank when he was on probation and that wasn’t allowed then he really does have some issues that desperately need to be addressed. I’m sure we will find out more on that as time goes by.

 

[Cyrus12]

Damn..hes still in jail..looks like he was framed.

 

[RiverDog]

I read a few different articles from local news there.

This one says he was arrested at 3:38 and booked at 4:51

Ex-Seahawks star Richard Sherman arrested by Washington State Patrol for suspected DUI

komonews.com

This one says he was stopped around 2 and booked at 4:51 so they are not really consistent on when he dealt with police on the street but both have the same booking time.

Former Seahawk Richard Sherman arrested for suspicion of DUI

Former Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman was booked for investigation of driving under the influence early Saturday morning, King County court records show.

www.seattletimes.com

As far as the legalities of Washington DUI laws, I did put the disclaimer that I don’t know how it works there at all so I appreciate the information from those who do know. I also still think he was wisely hedging his bet by not taking test until getting to the station in hopes his alcohol level goes down.

Either way, if he drank when he was on probation and that wasn’t allowed then he really does have some issues that desperately need to be addressed. I’m sure we will find out more on that as time goes by.

This is one of the reasons why we don't want to start jumping to conclusions and call him a problem alcoholic. The initial reports are all over the board.

With very few exceptions, the body burns alcohol at a rate of .016% per hour no matter how big you are. A judge/court can take into account the elapsed time between when you were pulled over and when the test was taken. They do not need a .08 or greater BAC result to convict a person of a DUI.

The roadside test is not legal and used only as a reference, mainly to give the cop some cover if he decides to let you go. If 30 minutes later you are involved in a fatal accident, the cop can point to the roadside test as a means of defending his decision. All Sherman did by refusing the roadside test was assure himself of a trip to the station. It was stupid of him to refuse it, especially if he only had a couple drinks as he claimed. If he passed it, maybe the cop lets him go. Refuse it and you're going to have to go to the station and test anyway. He had nothing to lose.

I'm not familiar with the terms of his suspended sentence, but I think your last paragraph is a reasonable assumption.

 

[pmedic920]

I’ll play devils advocate.

“Drunk driving” and DUI aren’t necessarily the same thing. (In terms of being able to safely operate a motor vehicle)

I absolutely agree that folks (especially) folks with the means and plenty to lose should make previous arrangements if they are going to be out and about while engaging.

There are many factors that come into play in a situation like this.
Getting pulled over for a license plate light being out and blowing a smidge over the “legal limit” doesn’t necessarily mean that you were “drunk” and endangering anyone.

I guarantee that many of us have driven when we would blow above the legal limits.

While I don’t and won’t condone driving while impaired, I also don’t agree with the premise that everyone that blows above (whatever your state says) is actually impaired and endangering other motorists or bystanders.

I don’t know the details in this situation but I believe that there should be a measure of leeway before we simply convict him based off knee jerk opinions.

Was he actually “drunk” and endangering anyone, or was he pulled over by a cop that was looking to take advantage of the situation? Do we know?

Do you believe that there is a difference, or do you believe that anyone that blows over the limit deserves to be crucified?

Edit:
For what it’s worth, I hate drunk drivers.
I’ve cleaned up and dealt with the aftermath for 30 years.
I’ve seen people that were absolutely hammered/trashed get set free, and I’ve seen people fully capable of driving safely get phucked over by the technical aspects.
Were these the same police that we want to de-fund under slightly different circumstances?

 

[NoGain]

I'm kind of in agreement with pmedic here. I drive while intoxicated. I'm rarely ever blotto drunk, but I may be near or just above the legal limit at times when I'm driving. The thing is I'm a Typa-A/alpha/aggressive driver most of the time, meaning I'm above the speed limit, taking advantage of opportunities to get ahead, going through yellow lights and all.

So when I've had a few drinks in me, I just slow down to the speed limit and drive like most of the rest of the cautious driver types; and when I do, it feels like I'm driving in slow motion. I actually feel safer when I'm a little buzzed and driving in slow motion than when I'm my usual aggressive self behind the wheel.

So when I hear of all these DUI's (never been pulled over or tested for that in my life), I find they usually are driving stupid, not taking the necessary precautions of someone who doesn't want to get pulled over and tested in such a way.

 

[86Hawk]

I'm kind of in agreement with pmedic here. I drive while intoxicated. I'm rarely ever blotto drunk, but I may be near or just above the legal limit at times when I'm driving. The thing is I'm a Typa-A/alpha/aggressive driver most of the time, meaning I'm above the speed limit, taking advantage of opportunities to get ahead, going through yellow lights and all.

So when I've had a few drinks in me, I just slow down to the speed limit and drive like most of the rest of the cautious driver types; and when I do, it feels like I'm driving in slow motion. I actually feel safer when I'm a little buzzed and driving in slow motion than when I'm my usual aggressive self behind the wheel.

So when I hear of all these DUI's (never been pulled over or tested for that in my life), I find they usually are driving stupid, not taking the necessary precautions of someone who doesn't want to get pulled over and tested in such a way.

You are NOT safer when driving buzzed. Please do all of us a favor and stay off the roads while intoxicated.

 

[RiverDog]

I’ll play devils advocate.

“Drunk driving” and DUI aren’t necessarily the same thing. (In terms of being able to safely operate a motor vehicle)

I absolutely agree that folks (especially) folks with the means and plenty to lose should make previous arrangements if they are going to be out and about while engaging.

There are many factors that come into play in a situation like this.
Getting pulled over for a license plate light being out and blowing a smidge over the “legal limit” doesn’t necessarily mean that you were “drunk” and endangering anyone.

I guarantee that many of us have driven when we would blow above the legal limits.

While I don’t and won’t condone driving while impaired, I also don’t agree with the premise that everyone that blows above (whatever your state says) is actually impaired and endangering other motorists or bystanders.

I don’t know the details in this situation but I believe that there should be a measure of leeway before we simply convict him based off knee jerk opinions.

Was he actually “drunk” and endangering anyone, or was he pulled over by a cop that was looking to take advantage of the situation? Do we know?

Do you believe that there is a difference, or do you believe that anyone that blows over the limit deserves to be crucified?

Edit:
For what it’s worth, I hate drunk drivers.
I’ve cleaned up and dealt with the aftermath for 30 years.
I’ve seen people that were absolutely hammered/trashed get set free, and I’ve seen people fully capable of driving safely get phucked over by the technical aspects.
Were these the same police that we want to de-fund under slightly different circumstances?

Excellent post, and I agree completely.

Before the days of Uber, I used to drive when I was over the legal limit many times. But I was very aware of my condition and made sure that I wasn't speeding or following too close. I didn't jack up the stereo or try to eat a burger. I drove with both hands on the steering wheel, nose to the windshield. Due to my heightened awareness, I was arguably less of a threat to the public than if I was completely sober and not paying complete attention to my driving. My consciousness of my condition made up for my slowed physical reactions.

Nowadays, it's simply not worth it. Even in small towns, I've never had to wait for a ride share more than 10 minutes and never had to pay over $50. If I'm going to get together with some friends at a bar, my wife will give me a ride then either pick me up later, a friend will give me a ride home, or I'll summon an Uber/Lyft.

It's a well-known fact that some people can handle alcohol better than others, and I personally think that there's something inherent in our body chemistry that makes the difference. I had a roommate in college who was 6'5", 265 lbs., but he was tits to the wind after just his 2nd beer while a guy about 2/3's his size could drink all night and you couldn't tell based on his behavior. Anyhow, I mentioned to my dad this knack of my big roomie to be tits to the wind after just two beers and dad's response was "Just like his old man."

 

[NoGain]

You are NOT safer when driving buzzed. Please do all of us a favor and stay off the roads while intoxicated.

Sorry, but the politically correct answer doesn't apply in my case for the reasons I mentioned. I've been driving for 50 years and have never had an accident while having liquour in my system, never gotten into an accident with liquor in my system, never been pulled over because of driving impairment due to having alcohol in my system. The only accidents I've ever gotten into, the only times I've ever been pulled over have been when I was entirely straight. Fancy that.

 

[Cyrus12]

When you drive drunk you know you are drunk so you pay extra special attention to the road.....I dont see the issue?

 

[86Hawk]

Sorry, but the politically correct answer doesn't apply in my case for the reasons I mentioned. I've been driving for 50 years and have never had an accident while having liquour in my system, never gotten into an accident with liquor in my system, never been pulled over because of driving impairment due to having alcohol in my system. The only accidents I've ever gotten into, the only times I've ever been pulled over have been when I was entirely straight. Fancy that.

You literally posted that you drive intoxicated and you feel safer driving buzzed. The ONLY reason you feel safer is because of the alcohol.

My brother was killed by an intoxicated driver such as yourself 8 years ago. Quit making excuses for dumb behavior.

I bet for the 50 years you have been driving 99% of that time you have been sober (At least I would hope). Think that might be why you have had more incidents while straight? Probably not right?

 

[RedAlice]

Sorry, but the politically correct answer doesn't apply in my case for the reasons I mentioned. I've been driving for 50 years and have never had an accident while having liquour in my system, never gotten into an accident with liquor in my system, never been pulled over because of driving impairment due to having alcohol in my system. The only accidents I've ever gotten into, the only times I've ever been pulled over have been when I was entirely straight. Fancy that.

But, how many times did you know you shouldn’t be driving even tho none of that happened?