What I referred to as “my understanding” was in reference to the events that actually happened, leaving open the possibility that the events as described may have been incorrect, although the CNN reporter pretty explicitly pointed out the track of the out-of-control SUV. And if those events were correct, then the person you’re trying to defend here could easily have killed many innocent people in the oncoming traffic, leading to head-on collisions with possibly multiple vehicles. It’s unbelievable to me that it should not be paramount to investigate the potential impairment of a driver responsible for this, who already has a record of such impairment.
As I said, here in Ontario, Tiger may well have had his license still under suspension for past infractions. We take these things seriously. But then, our priority is safe roads and a safe society. The priorities you advocate are obviously different.
Taking samples to confirm impairment is hardly “mob rule”. You seem to be suggesting he could have killed multiple people during his crash and not been compelled to give any samples at all. Doesn’t seem right to me.
It’s not cut and dry, not at all. It works out in different ways based on circumstances. The lack of other people and vehicles involved favors Tiger in this case, people run off the road all the time for all sorts of reasons. The police can’t interfere with Tiger’s need for immediate medical treatment because of some past hearsay about him. But any actual evidence of a potentially criminal act could have changed things immediately. If he’d hit another car, if there were empty liquor bottles in the car, or if he been seen earlier in an intoxicated condition then the police might aggressively investigate and seek a warrant if he refused to supply a blood sample.
Throwing out the constitution when public opinion goes off the rails is mob rule. Crashing your car isn’t a crime. Causing the death or injury of other’s is a possible crime and represents probable cause in and of itself. Your fallacious argument is silly.
Our school system really, really sucks if we need to explain this stuff.
It may not have been obvious, but the cut and dry statement wasn’t about the accident and it’s circumstances (which based on the incomplete evidence so far are also pretty straightforward) it’s about the fact that search and seizure without probable cause is unconstitutional. This is not subject to interpretation or debate.
I like Tiger and I predict he will golf again. That said I’m willing to be the bad guy and note there are reports he was swerving his vehicle and not walking straight before he got into it.
Let’s just say that whenever someone is met with “bad luck” over and over again, a lot of the time they bring it upon themselves . . . …
It might well be the result of a criminal action that you’ve taken though, correct?
What about acting in a way that present a risk to other road users? Are there no laws about that? Does there have to be an injury to someone else for such things to be thoroughly investigated? Why would the probable cause be different just because the crash had the good fortune not to involve anyone else?
There seems to be good reason to suspect in this case that he may have been driving under the influence.
There also is the possibility of medical issues (he may have been impaired and not fit to drive for various reasons) There is also the possibility of being distracted by using a mobile phone, similar for a vehicle malfunction.
They should all be investigated to understand what happened because the risk presented by a high-speed vehicle veering out of its lane and driving across oncoming traffic is severe.
I’m not a product of your school system but I’m fully capable of criticising interpretations of an imperfect document.
It’s not fallacious, and at the moment I prefer it to your argument, which it appears to me can be boiled down to “DUI is fine as long as no-one gets hurt”.
his leg injuries are mostly below the knee. understandable with the damage to the front of the car.
he has:
Comminuted open fractures affecting both the upper and lower portions of the tibia and fibula bones were stabilized by inserting a rod into the tibia,” Anish Mahajan said in a statement released early Wednesday by Woods’s representatives. “Additional injuries to the bones of the foot and ankle were stabilized with a combination of screws and pins. Trauma to the muscle and soft-tissue of the leg required surgical release of the covering of the muscles to relieve pressure due to swelling.”
those are some serious injuries, hopefully he doesn’t get any infections. this is going to be a long recovery.
As evidence at trial, sure. But I’d like to hear from an actual lawyer whether knowledge of prior bad acts must be excluded from consideration as a contributor to probable cause to seek evidence. It seems contrary to all common sense if that’s really the case.
I’d be more concerned about him developing an addiction to the kind of drugs often prescribed to athletes following such surgeries.
Isn’t that the recipe? Undreamed of early fame, success and wealth. Followed by marriage breakdown, slipping success, sports injuries, car crashes, more injuries, surgeries and painkillers! Still a young man, ended career, broken family, body that can’t perform, a pocket full of pills and a very fast car.
How many times have we watched it play out that way? I sure hope his Mama’s watching out for him, as I doubt all those who have profited off his successes will.
Probable cause itself is not cut and dry. Probable cause for requesting a blood sample is a low bar, but not the only factor. There is no need for probable cause to investigate a car accident. We don’t have enough details yet, but just a lack of skid marks to indicate braking raises suspicions. @Novelty_Bobble has pointed out the implied consent aspects of driving even further lowering the bar for the state to investigate.
In general terms, no, but in this case it’s seems pretty clear cut. The officers and paramedics at the scene observed no signs of impairment. He was trapped and had to be extracted from the car and treated for significant injuries. I’d say the people at the scene would have had plenty of opportunity to decide if he was acting impaired and they found none.
Yet the SDMB peanut gallery are deciding that he’s guilty of DUI based on jack shit.
This is a pathetically weak straw man. The criticism here is directed at the police who decided there was no probable cause to obtain direct evidence that would have settled the matter decisively.
It seems highly implausible to me that the only possible grounds for P.C. in a crash is to attempt to judge the mental state of someone who is immobilized and undergoing emergency treatment to stabilize serious injuries. That would seem to put the police in a very difficult position of interfering with medical treatment to seek P.C.
The question seems to be whether he should have a blood test because 1) he was in a serious accident or 2) he was in a serious accident and had a prior DUI.
I’m okay with “1.” The prior DUI doesn’t help establish probable cause, in my opinion.
I’m not saying he’s guilty. As you say, no evidence is apparent. I’m just saying it’s not a cut and dry issue in general. If the authorities in CA wanted to jump on his ass they could have, in the case of DUI if there is evidence it’s tough to shake the charge.
Now just about every time a celebrity is involved in a car accident someone jumps up and shouts DUI. How many times that’s true, I don’t know, but I have seen there are far less charges and convictions than there are accusations.