This afternoon, in Jupiter Island, Florida (near his home), Tiger Woods was involved in a traffic incident in which he struck another car, and rolled his SUV. Police indicate that he showed “signs of impairment,” and arrested him on suspicion of DUI. (He was apparently not injured.)
This is his second DUI incident in Jupiter Island (the first in 2017), and the second time he’s crashed a car in five years.
He was also seriously injured in a previous accident iirc in California.
In Weston Fl there was that time when his estranged wife chased down his car with a golf club.
Yes, that was the 2021 crash. He was doing 80 miles an hour on a road where the speed limit was something like 45, rolled that car, was trapped inside it, and suffered a severe leg injury, which nearly cost him the leg, and led to a lengthy recovery and rehabilitation.
Oh, and only today did I learn that Woods is currently dating Vanessa Trump, the ex-wife of Donald Trump Jr.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???
Weird. Ugh. I had no idea. I guess I do vaguely remember him being friendly with Donald Trump, though this is insane and bizarre.
Well, I’ll say it: What an asshole! The guy is a billionaire, supposedly. Hire a freaking driver, you irresponsible assgoblin.
He should lose his driving privileges forever if he was driving recklessly and/or impaired. Again.
On Tuesday with his girlfriend and her daughter watching he played in a team tournament that lost. Friday night he’s impaired and crashing out. His license should get revoked.
I was going to say, pretty much, the same thing.
I don’t care if he hates himself. Do not continue to put innocent people at risk. Too bad, it seems that you need too many DUIs before the courts will act.
Legal question: I read that he showed signs of being impaired, refused an urine test, which he’s legally allowed to in Florida and got arrested. He got released 8 hours later, obviously without having been tested for drugs, neither by urine or blood samples. How does this work? How can he be accused of DUI without a medicinal proof? I mean, If anyone can easily refuse a test, this sounds like an easy way to get away with DUI in any case.
Anyway, what I wanted to add: Woods may be the GOAT in golf, but he also seems to be the worst driver of all time.
As of last October, the refusal is itself a criminal misdemeanor in Florida.
But, to the issue of DUI, it can be proven in two ways. Either he had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 liters of breath]., or he
was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.
If this is presented to a jury, “normal faculties” are explained this way:
Normal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and physical acts of our daily lives.
ETA: also, at the trial, his refusal can be used against him.
The prosecutor loves to make this analogy in their closing argument: “The Defendant didn’t want to take that test for the same reason that I don’t want to get the on the scale and weigh myself the day after Thanksgiving. He knew he wouldn’t like the result.”
Ah, this is a point my source obviously got wrong. It was a German news outlet, so maybe they just hadn’t caught up to the changed Florida law. Thanks for the explanation.
But one more question: if it comes to a trial, will the accusation for DUI depend on the witness statements of the police officers about Woods’ state of impairment according to their assessment?
In Florida, it used to be that your second refusal was a criminal charge, but that changed last year.
If you are charged with a refusal, all the State has to prove is that the cop had probable cause to believe that you were impaired, and that you refused to provide a sample after being properly notified of the consequences (I.e. that it’s a criminal charge and can be used against you in a prosecution of the case)
Basically, then, there’s practically no way to win a DUI trial anymore: either the person provided a breath sample above .08 (slam dunk) or they refused and the cop just has to testify that he thought they were drunk.
(The only exception would be those cases where the breath test is ruled inadmissible because they didn’t follow procedures, or a case where a person bows below .08 but the cop still claims they are “impaired”)
Yes, witnesses can testify to Woods’ state of impairment. It isn’t considered an expert opinion to say that somebody seems to be drunk; the law views that as a lay observation that any witness can make.
Police, though, are trained to give the same rote description: bloodshot and watery eyes; thick tongue and slurred speech; odor of alcohol coming from his breath; unsteady movements. This appears in some form in practically every DUI case.
Thanks again, this answers all my legal questions in this case.
Caught that too late: as I understand it, he consented to a breathalyzer test which showed 0, but refused to give a urine sample, so it’s not about alcohol. Of course other drugs cause similar symptoms, but does that make a difference in court?
Sounds like it - assuming there’s no video of Woods attempting to walk heel to toe or doing other roadside tests.
He can afford the best DUI lawyers. More than likely he’ll wind up paying a fine and avoid a DUI conviction which under Florida law is supposed to yield at least a six-month driving license revocation. And even if he was convicted of DUI, Trump has already pressured Gov. DeSantis to pardon him, so Woods might be able to get right back on the road and endanger other drivers and pedestrians.
On to The Masters!
Trivial issue here but I’m wondering. Is Vanessa Trump still using the name Trump? Or has she reverted to Pergolizzi or Haydon? Usually when a woman gets divorced she stops using her husband’s name but all the news reports I’m seeing are calling her Vanessa Trump.
Oh, I hadn’t actually read the details.
Some officers are trained as “DRE”s (drug recognition experts). Basically it’s a class they took to get a certificate, and they do additional tests beyond the typical field sobriety tests, but it allows an officer to opine about possible drug impairment when testifying.
Since Woods refused to cooperate, there is a possible legal defense if it went to trial - he was “tired”, or maybe even “involuntary intoxication” if he had a “bad reaction” to “new medication” - but the State would hammer his consciousness of guilt by refusing to offer a urine sample, and the officers would certainly embellish their observations of his supposed impairment at the scene.
Then again, more realistically:
If I had to predict, I bet he pleads guilty to reckless driving. It’s the lesser included offense whenever DUI is charged, and it’s what the State usually reduces the charges to when they make a deal.
A Reckless is points on your license, and a fine, but no drivers license revocation.
(Usually, when a DUI is reduced, it is to a wet reckless, meaning the person still has to do the DUI counseling, classes, and community service associated with a DUI)
It’s not that unheard of for a divorced person to keep a married name, especially a high-profile one like that, to keep continuity and, say, share her last name with the kids. So far as I can tell, she’s still referred to as Vanessa Trump. I mean, didn’t Ivana Trump remain Ivana Trump after their divorce?
In addition to the DUI charge, a person arrested for DUI usually faces an administrative suspension of their license if they a) blow above .08 or b) refuse the test.
sometimes the person wins a hearing challenging that suspension (but normally it’s only because the officer didn’t show up), and sometimes a person can qualify for a hardship license (although it’s not supposed to be an option if you have two or more duis or refusals on record).
A first refusal is a 1 year suspension, and a 2nd is 18 months.
So Woods shouldn’t be driving right now, regardless of what happens with the DUI.
High profile, low profile, my understanding is that it generally boils down to two reasons a divorced woman keeps her ex’s last name: To match her kids’ last name, and because it’s a pain in the ass to switch back to your maiden name. Much harder than the name change when you get married.
This is just what I’ve heard. Confirmation or corrections welcome on that second part about the paperwork being worse to go back.
Keeping in mind that this will vary by state…
… where I live a woman can change her last name upon marriage by doing nothing more than starting to use that name and if proof is required she can show a copy of the marriage license.
To change back after a divorce is a “legal change of name”. That means public notification of the change by publication, lawyer’s fees, and going in front of a judge to say “pretty please, can I change my name?”
Yeah, a bit more involved.