While on probation, a since murdered buddy of his was using his home for drug dealing, and a police raid found guns and cocaine in his home. This is his second (or possibly third) violation since conviction of a gun offense.
Anyone who did not have his public profile would be sitting in jail right now. Nevertheless, he is out, and I do not believe he is a flight risk, and he should be allowed to leave the state to play in the Super Bowl.
If part of the condition of his probation was “Keep your nose clean or the judge has the discretion to make you stay instate” then I think the judge should go ahead and do it.
People of the non-football star variety get thrown in jail for far less. Kids get grounded for far less. This guy obviously is not taking his legal troubles seriously at all, and rewarding him by letting him go play in the Super Bowl is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Make him stay home and miss out on all the fun. Let him think about how he let his team and the fans down. Based solely on that article this appears to be a mess entirely of his own making and he should have to deal with it.
Sounds to me like he should definitely not be allowed to leave the state. I read that article earlier today, and it sounds like the judge may tell him he’s grounded. I think that’s the right call- then again, I’m rooting for the Colts, so I may be biased.
While the linked article says nothing about cocaine, it does mention that William Posey was caught in Tank’s basement “with a wholesale quantity of marijuana.” Wholesale quantity does imply dealing. Or a real big party.
Legal folks, what is the purpose of do not leave the state? I thought it was related to elopement risk, not punishment. If so, then he should be allowed to go, as he presents an extremely small elopement risk. Heck, he’ll be watched by large portions of the country! Would a paroled coorporate executive whose house contained a gun be similarly grounded or allowed to attend the Big Board Meeting out of state?
Maybe, but probably not according to the articles I’ve read. They could be wrong, but most say the bond he received is ridiculously high. It’s also important to note that he is charged with illegally possessing weapons without a valid firearm owners identification card, not having illegal firearms. this could turn out to be little more than a administrative error. Either way, he should be able to play in the Superbowl.
I’m not “legal folks” but I think it doesn’t matter that you know where he is. If he is not in the state then he is out of the jurisdiction of the state courts and that is the concern.
It seems reasonable to me that Johnson should be allowed to leave the state for a work-related commitment. He poses no flight risk and has many incentives to return to Illinois after the game.
No it doesn’t. If I come home from Sams Club with a wholesale size jar of peanut butter it doesn’t imply that I am going to starting selling PB&J’s. For all we know this guy just might have really liked to smoke pot and picked up a 2 week supply. Besides, I don’t trust the government to determine what a wholesale size of pot is. It wouldn’t surprise me if it wasn’t all that much pot.
I was thinking that the large quantity may have to do with the fact that the guys in question have a lot of $$$ available to them, and a lot of friends they like to treat.
It kinda does. I served on a jury in a cocaine case in Federal court recently and the DEA told us that the “intention to distribute” portion of one charge depended on how much coke the defendant had. If it was a small enough amount that it could be for personal use then no intent to distribute, if it was much larger then intention.
For cocaine, the “personal use” limit is very small (grams or milligrams). In our case there were multiple bags containing many kilos so that part was a pretty simple decision.
I don’t know what it is for pot but I’m pretty sure one joint wouldn’t make a convincing intent to distribute argument, whereas a garbage bag full of marijuana would.
Without knowing precedent it’s impossible to answer the question. If a judge would normally, given precedent, allow a person to leave the state for the purpose of doing their job, then of course he should allow Johnson the same slack. If not, then he should not.