Cardinals' Boston won't face drug charges May 1, 2002 Print it PHOENIX -- Arizona Cardinals Pro Bowl receiver David Boston will not be prosecuted on drug possession charges because of lack of evidence. Boston was stopped in March for allegedly driving under the influence, and two bags of cocaine were found in the back of a police cruiser after Boston was transported. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Tuesday there isn't sufficient evidence to prosecute on the cocaine charge. Police are recommending Boston be prosecuted for driving under the influence of drugs. Blood tests taken after Boston was detained for "performing very poorly" during a field sobriety test revealed the presence of cocaine and mar1juana Ok, now Im confused. Is this Really lack of evidence, or is it more like "Boston's a celebrity" lack of evidence.
Am i right, did i see he was tested for drugs and had cocaine and marijuna?? and not enough evidence, with the bags of them found in his car???
Not found in his car. They were found in the police car. The questions would be: How long after Boston was transported were these bags found in the police cruiser and how long had it been since the police cruiser was searched before Boston was placed inside? It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that the bags of cocaine came from someone else and were just noticed some time after Boston was transported in the police cruiser. I'm sure knowing that Boston would be able to afford good legal representation helped make the decision as to whether to proceed with such a case.
Oh come on now. It doesnt say that it was a long time afterwards. It doesnt even say that it wasnt necessarily as they were pulling him out of the car that they found the bags. And Im positive that if there was a chance that someone else was transported in this vehicle that it wouldnt even of been brought up. Not to mention my man "seriously failed" a field sobriety test. Whats inconclusive about that? If this is me, or you, we're both in jail with drug charges. No if's and's or butt's.
It doesn't say it was right afterward, either. It just said "afterward". It also doesn't say that the police car had been searched directly before Boston was put in the car. It doesn't say a lot of things. And it would've been brought up regardless of whether someone else had been transported before or after (I have a hard time believing this was a brand new police car that had never transported another prisoner or that it is routinely and thuroughly cleaned after each transport). I don't disagree with that statement that you'd be in jail (I have faith that my attorney could beat the rap, too, but that's neither here not there). I was merely bringing up things that a highly-paid defense attorney would bring up. I would note, though, that failing a sobriety test is not the same as being in possession. One can be under the influence and also not be in possession of a controlled substance. Sure, he's probably guilty of the crime, but I can guarantee that if the police were sure that there was no other way those drugs could've gotten into the police car AND could prove it (by cleaning records showing the car had been thuroughly cleaned directly before the transport and that the drugs were found immediately as Boston was being pulled from the car.. or something close to that), they'd file charges. As it is, there's enough that a good defense attorney could tear apart, especially with a famous client. If it was open and shut, they'd go for it. Since it isn't. They're saving taxpayer money and the court's time.
