Clemson's Vincent Expected to Play

[justpracticin]

Vincent Expected to Play
Cortney Vincent

By Brett Jensen
CUTigers.com
Posted Dec 13, 2007


CLEMSON – Redshirt junior middle linebacker Cortney Vincent was arrested and charged with DUI late Saturday night and had to spend several hours in the Pickens County Detention Center. Even so, he’s expected to play in the football team’s upcoming game in the Chick-fil-A Bowl.

Vincent’s court date is scheduled for the middle of January, but Tigers head coach Tommy Bowden is expected to announce in a released statement that Vincent, who started all 12 games this season, will play against No. 22 Auburn on New Year’s Eve.

Vincent was stopped on the way home from a party Saturday night for unknown reasons by a South Carolina Highway Patrolman.

According to those familiar with the occurrence, the patrolman asked Vincent if he’d been drinking and Vincent told the officer that he had very little and that he had stopped drinking because he knew he had to drive.

Those same sources said the officer then asked Vincent to step out of the car and undertake a field sobriety test. Vincent complied and passed the test.

But as is the norm, the patrolman wanted Vincent to submit to an on-site breathalyzer. The only problem was he didn’t have one and another patrol car wasn’t readily available to come to the scene and deliver a breathalyzer.

Vincent was then taken to the station to be given his breathalyzer. But upon arrival, Vincent refused to take the test, which automatically means the state views that as an admission of guilt.

Oddly enough, after refusing the breathalyzer, no court ordered blood test was issued, which means there is no evidence that Vincent had a blood-alcohol level of .08 or higher.

Vincent is set to fight this charge, sources said.

Clemson head coach Tommy Bowden saying Wednesday night there were no disciplinary issues surrounding the team, though he was well aware that Vincent had spent some eight hours in jail.

What will remain unclear until Bowden meets with the media on Saturday is whether he looks at each case of DUI on an individual basis and if he believes Vincent is innocent, or if his policy is to let everyone play and reserves judgment until that player’s day in court, even if appears that player is guilty as charged.
*************************************************
Sounds like somebody was looking to cause CV trouble. No mention of probable cause for the stop. They usually say "driving erratically". No mention on SLED records that BAC was refused. Something's fishy.

[Catdaddy]

Originally posted by justpracticin:
CLEMSON – he’s expected to play in the football team’s upcoming game in the Chick-fil-A Bowl.

Tigers head coach Tommy Bowden is expected to announce in a released statement that Vincent, who started all 12 games this season, will play against No. 22 Auburn on New Year’s Eve.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

When it's a Clemson player,it's no big deal.

Originally posted by justpracticin:
Sounds like somebody was looking to cause CV trouble. No mention of probable cause for the stop.

Sure would have been nice to hear all this legal concern when the USC players were getting in trouble. What's really surprising is why the officer didn't just carry him home and sweep it under the rug, like most Pickens county incidents. No more free tickets for him.

Originally posted by justpracticin:
Something's fishy.

Yea, I bet it was an undercover cop from Columbia. Maybe USC campus security. Yea,they were out to get him,that's it.


You taters are too much.

[Aging Baby Boomer]

No sympathy for drunk driving here. If he pleads or is found guilty the punishment should be swift and significant.

As CTB says, "Stick to the game plan. Don't drink and drive."

[justpracticin]

CD - believe me, the concern was there when Emanuel Cook's charges were dimissed at a preliminary hearing after he was caught with a gun on campus. Obviously a judge found that what the cops said happened must not have or they didn't do their job right. Either way he walked and USuC benefited from it.

It's called civil rights and the most fundamental of which is the due process of law, ie: you are innocent until proven guilty.

[Duck Nitz]

He is definitely guilty of being a Tater!

[DRDUCK]

AND a good one at that duck nitz

[Tater]

I'd let him play too. I'm definitely NOT in favor of drinking and driving, but if you don't the ability to get the goods on him after he passes the field sobriety then you better let him go.

[huntinMP]

Usually if you get pulled out for SFST's then there is probable cause so you get hauled in anyways. Shouldn't have pulled him out unless the cop knew he had him on somethin and if he can't show probable cause for the stop then he will get off.

[Big mac]

Let's not forget, innocent until proven guilty.You should know the facts before you speak,otherwise you could show your ignorance.
He was stopped by HP,asked if he had been drinking,answered,was asked to step out of the car, he complied,took a field sobriety test and passed.Was asked if he would submit to a field breathilizer,said yes, officer did not have one & it was going to take too long for one to arrive so they took him back to the station. He would not take the test at the station, which the state views as an admission of guilt. Here is the good part, they failed to take his blood.
Now you tell me how they are going to prove he was drunk ?

[SNAP Hunter]

I didn't know there were any field breath tests in use in this state especially in use by the SCHP. I know some agencies that have DUI grant teams are not even thinking about field breath tests. They are not admissible in court. If he passed the SFST's then he should have been let go or a ride called to come pick him up. I have been a LEO for 10 years now and I have never seen somebody taken in for a breathalizer test after passing SFST's. That would only be the case if he was consuming alcoholic beverages. If there is reasonable suspicion to believe that he was using illegal drugs then you can still take him in for a breath test and then to the hospital for a urine test. They may refuse either or both tests. That may only happen if he registers below .08% on the breath test.