Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2026/3/28/tiger-woods-released-on-bail-hours-after-arrest-on-suspicion-of-dui

From Al Jazeera – Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera via this RSS feed

He passed a breathalyzer test: 0.0.

He refused a urine test. It is his right to refuse a urine test.

The burden is on the police and prosecutor to prove impairment, not on the defendant to prove they were not. Refusing a urine test is not evidence of impairment. It is no different than exercising the right to remain silent.

Even if he had taken it, a urine test is not evidence of impairment. A urine test could indicate that drug metabolites were present in his system, but cannot determine impairment at the time of the event. Certain prescription pain killers, for example, could be detected in urine even with doses low enough not to cause impairment, or several days after last used.

The police have not provided any evidence of impairment. They've indicated they don't know his speed. The only evidence they have provided is that there was a collision between his vehicle and another vehicle.

ACAB, even when the subject is famous. I'll withhold judgment until some actual evidence is presented.

Garbage take, this is the second time he has done this. Getting high on pills and driving is a DUI. Any normal person would be ordered to submit a blood test by a judge. Two-tired legal system and he gets away again. One of these times he will kill someone and likely still get away with it.

Ok, officer.

Not at all. Just to be clear he is getting off because of his money and you approve of it. I find that pretty distasteful.

Take the money out of the equation. A man has been involved in a vehicle collision, in which his high-profile vehicle has rolled on its side. He passes a breathalyzer, then refuses to speak or provide other evidence to be used against himself without an attorney.

You're saying that we should trust a police accusation over the right-to-remain-silent of a random middle-aged black man.

Yes, there is a difference to how he is being treated as opposed to that random black man, but the problem isn't that he is being treated leniently. The problem is that the random black man would still be in jail for having the audacity to exercise his right against self incrimination.

A random white man who blew 0.0 in the same situation would have received a traffic citation, and would not even have been asked to piss in a cup, because the cops know that random white man can freely refuse. They know that a piss test cannot reliably indicate impairment, and that refusal to take a piss test is not evidence of guilt.

I get you want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know of his past and I would not. He is a menace to society because he has probably done this numerous times and held it together. This is the second time he fucked up and he is lucky to not have killed himself or someone else. In places like Japan he would have already lost his license.

I am disgusted by his carelessness and upset about his privilege. Any normal person would have had a blood test ordered, it is standard procedure. I find the fact that police let wealthy people go because they don't want to deal with the litigation kind of ridiculous.

It is part of the reason we have a two-tired justice system. Cops are bastards, but not always in the ways you think.

It is part of the reason we have a two-tired justice system.

You recognize that we have a two-tiered justice system. You recognize that we have systemic repression in law enforcement. Your solution is not to eliminate the oppressed tier. Your solution is to eliminate the non-oppressed tier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

This is the second time he fucked up and he is lucky to not have killed himself or someone else.

You have zero evidence in front of you that this was anything but a minor traffic accident.

You can get a high-profile SUV to rollover at 15mph if you hit the right obstacle in the right way. Failing to see a long, low trailer behind a large truck, and merging into the back end of that trailer is a very common type of collision. It's also the type of collision that can easily result in a low-speed rollover. This could be nothing more than a simple "failure to yield".

Any past incident is completely irrelevant and inadmissible in determining fault or impairment here. His past only becomes relevant if prosecutors can prove impairment in this case. If they can prove impairment without mentioning his past, they can use his past convictions to influence sentencing. If they can't prove impairment here, his past is completely irrelevant. If you can only "prove" impairment by saying he was previously impaired, you can't actually prove impairment.

I am disgusted by his carelessness

You have no evidence of disgust-worthy carelessness. Again, no evidence has been publicly presented that this was anything but a typical collision. I don't know of any person over the age of 20 who has not been involved in a similar collision. This is why we have seatbelts and insurance.

and upset about his privilege.

He isn't privileged. This isn't what privilege looks like.

In actuality, he's being defamed, as police and the media are improperly implying guilt without evidence. It is his right to refuse warrantless search and seizure in the form of a urine test. Police were free to seek a warrant to compel blood or urine tests. They've got judges on call to issue such warrants on short notice. Apparently, no such warrant was granted. The proper conclusion to draw is that police had no reason to think him impaired. And yet, his guilt is still being implied, solely because he exercised his rights.

Defamation issues aside, everything else is what "due process" looks like. When you see a difference between how he is being treated compared to the average individual, you should recognize that the average individual is not receiving due process. The average individual is subjected to unjustified systemic oppression. Don't get pissed off at someone for not being oppressed. Get pissed off at the oppressors.

In order for justice to be achieved it must deliver equality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

The solution is to eliminate the two tired justice system. In this case equality would be treating Mr. Woods just like another DUI driver that has undetermined substances in their blood. A blood test would be ordered.

You think fucking up when driving a multi ton vehicle is minor? Clearly you have never seen the death even a low speed collision can cause

Any past incident may be irrelevant in a court of law if deemed so by the judge, it is NOT irrelevant to an investigation.

Your denial he did not get special treatment is farcical. I suggest you look up what typically happens in these types of DUIs. The suspect will be compelled to give a blood sample by court order.

The solution is to eliminate the two tired justice system.

Agreed.

In this case equality would be treating Mr. Woods just like another DUI driver

1. There is zero evidence that he is a "DUI Driver". 2. Equality would be not systemically oppressing everyone else, rather than demanding he be similarly oppressed.

that has undetermined substances in their blood.

there is zero actual evidence that he had any "undetermined substances" in his blood. There is a baseless, unsupported accusation made by a cop.

A blood test would be ordered.

If the police actually believed he was impaired, they would ask a judge for a warrant for a blood test. If the judge thought the police had probable cause, they would grant that warrant. All that is needed for such a warrant is a cop's attestation that they observed behavior consistent with impairment.

The lack of such a warrant tells us that the police didn't believe he was actually impaired, and/or the judge didn't believe the police had sufficient probable cause to grant one. The lack of a warrant; the lack of an order for a blood or urine test tells us far more here than his exercise of his right against self incrimination.

You think fucking up when driving a multi ton vehicle is minor?

Yes. It's a common occurrence. Two vehicles impacted eachother. Happens about 17,000 times a day in the US. About once every 5 seconds. Very common. The appropriate legal consequences are a traffic citation for "failure to yield". No criminal penalty. Civil responsibility for all actual damages. No punitive damages. The driver responsible for the collision is expected to make whole the other parties involved, and pay a small fine.

Clearly you have never seen the death even a low speed collision can cause

Are you suggesting he should be prosecuted for vehicular homicide? What the fuck are you even on about?

Zero evidence!?

"Woods had been travelling at “high speeds” on a residential road and, after the crash, showed “signs of impairment”, Martin County Sheriff John Budensiek said, adding that investigators believe he had taken some kind of medication or drug."

Please. Evidence you personally refuse to accept does no equate to no evidence

Read it again.

He said Woods attempted to pass a pressure cleaner truck while driving on a two-lane road with a 48 kilometres per hour (30 miles per hour) speed limit. He said authorities could not determine how fast Woods was going.

With that admission, you don't get to use speed.

I've already addressed the claim about impairment: they did not convince a judge that they had sufficient probable cause for a blood or urine order. So you don't get to use impairment either.

What you quoted are baseless accusations made by a cop. Until and unless you can support them with actual evidence, they should be viewed as complete horseshit. This is true whether we are talking about Woods, or we are talking about any random victim of police defamation.

I did, I quoted it.

I get it, the speed can't be determined as they said.

It is literally their job to determine impairment. I understand you hate cops, but I don't hate them for busting pill head losers who can't control their vehicle.

It is literally their job to determine impairment.

It is literally their job to prove to the satisfaction of a judge that the accused was impaired.

#THEY DID NOT DO THIS.

What part of that don't you understand? They did not convince a judge to issue a warrant for urine or blood. You know this; you've cited it as evidence of preferential treatment.

But the cops continue to accuse him of impairment. They continue to accuse him of wrongdoing. There is no preferential treatment. They accuse him of impairment, but they did not take the steps they would take if he were actually impaired.

He has the right to refuse the urine test. Under Florida Law this is unlawful and he will lose his license for a year.

This is also an admission of guilt hence the update know as Trenton's Law in 2025. This is what happened, as to the blood test I believe they didn't even push for it because of his litigatious nature.

Hey, it is clear you can't objectively see Tiger Woods as the pill popping washed up loser that he is. I can. It is okay.

[The Sheriff] said Woods has the right to refuse the urine test

You do not have the right to refuse an ordered test. Based on the Sheriff's statements, Trenton's law does not apply, as he was not ordered to provide the test. (Even then, I suspect that Trenton's Law will face 4th amendment challenges; it appears unconstitutional on its face.)

Hey, it is clear you can’t objectively see Tiger Woods as the pill popping washed up loser that he is. I can. It is okay.

Presumption of innocence. None of your claims are supported by evidence, so all of your claims must be presumed false.
We can revisit those claims if and when the evidence arises.

You are wrong. That is also okay.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/27/g-s1-115540/tiger-woods-arrest-dui-suspicion-masters-golf

"He said Woods has the right to refuse the urine test and that authorities "will never get definitive results with what he was impaired on."

They are not pursuing the investigation because of his litigatious nature. They are going to nail him with implied consent and be done with it under the amended Florida DUI statute. As I said, the rich get the kid gloves.

Litigation is exactly what should happen in all cases of systemic oppression.

It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down. Have a nice day.