There's nothing I can say in defense of Little's past charge. He did, however, serve a debt to society that was in line with the sentence that would be given to a first time offender in St. Louis.
In this case there was no evidence that Little was, in fact, intoxicated. Here's the details you should look into before lynching the guy.
1. Little was pulled over for going 78 in a 55. He was not, however, pulled over for any other moving violation which includes swurving or anything of that nature that would be associated with intoxication. Living in the area, I know how things are in that part of the county. It's a rich upscale majorly white area where discrimmination against a minority in a nice car would not surpise many.
2. The arresting officer testified that Little could not walk in a straight line and was flapping his arms and leaning on his car for balance. To fail this test the person must step two inches off the line. The backup officer who was on the scene denied seeing this, as well as the arm flapping and leaning. The backup officer was asked by the defense today, something along the lines of: so in your mind Leonard Little was not
intoxicated. His reply: that is correct. That was one of the three tests the officer claimed he failed and according to the other officer, he didn't fail it.
3. The only evidence the arresting officer had other than what I just mentioned was an audio tape in which Little did not slur his speech and was completely cooperative. THe arresting officer admitted you wouldn't be able to tell he was intoxicated from the tape.
4. The arresting officer administered an eye test where you flash a light in the persons eyes and ask them to follow it as you move it around. This is supposed to be done while the person is standing and facing away from traffic so the eyes aren't drawn to oncoming headlights, and the duration is 60 seconds. The officer administered this test while Little was sitting in his car, facing oncoming traffic for only 10 seconds. This was the second of three tests that Little suposedly failed, but it is clear that conditions imposed would cause many to fail when sober. I can't recall what the third test was.
In his testimony Thursday, Stork [the arresting officer] admitted that the sobriety tests he administered to Little varied from established police procedures.
5. Little was taken to the police station shortly after the arrest. A booking officer said there were no signs of intoxication. Here's a quote from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article:
Under Rosenblum's questioning, McClure said Little wasn't stumbling, swaying, losing his balance or smelling of alcohol at the Ladue police station, where he was taken 18 minutes after the traffic stop.
So before you all pass judgement, perhaps you should look at the facts. Sounded to me like an officer looking to earn brownie points.
gimmie a break. you get pulled over and you refuse a breathalizer, then you are admitting your guilt. this guy shouldnt be allowed to play in the nfl.
Actually I've been told by a relative of mine who happens to be a lawyer, to refuse a breathalyzer because of its inaccuracies.
Last edited by ZigZagMan on Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.