Skip to content

Oh good: Miguel Cabrera gets his driver’s license back

May 31, 2011, 9:14 AM EST

Miguel Cabrera mugshot

Miguel Cabrera‘s Maserati goes one-eighty-five. Got back his license, now he can drive. Life’s been good to him so far:

Florida officials have returned Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera’s driver’s license, but he still faces DUI charges. The Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Department determined Friday there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Cabrera had been driving or was in actual control of his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol when he was arrested Feb. 16.

According to the article this doesn’t affect his DUI case, merely his license suspension for refusing the breathalyser, but someone who knows Florida DUI law will have to explain to me why that is. Because if the cops can’t establish that he was actually driving for the license suspension, how can they do it for the DUI?

In other news, maybe Jim Leyland was right when he said that Cabrera was in the best shape of his life at the time of the arrest. I mean, really, the guy apparently walked from his home in Miami all the way to that rural road in Fort Pierce in a couple of hours …

  1. cur68 - May 31, 2011 at 9:17 AM

    (facepalm).

    Seriously, WTF? Does logic play no effing part in the law?

    • Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward - May 31, 2011 at 10:44 AM

      It’s Florida.

    • patsandsox - May 31, 2011 at 1:17 PM

      If it was a non celebrity the license would not have been returned without going to drunk driving school, paying a large fine, and all that noise (deservedly so).

      A friend of mine was found in his car, in a parking spot, with the motor shut off, and still got a dui because the keys were in the ignition.

      How the EFF is this fair? Or yeah I keep forgetting there are two sets of laws: one for the rich and famous and one for the rest of us.

  2. ThatGuy - May 31, 2011 at 9:21 AM

    Didn’t just walk, pushed his car…

  3. Patrick - May 31, 2011 at 9:22 AM

    Craig,

    Given your Dead Milkmen tweets, I did not expect to see a Joe Walsh reference.

    • Craig Calcaterra - May 31, 2011 at 9:23 AM

      I’m a man of disparate influences.

  4. kiwicricket - May 31, 2011 at 9:24 AM

    That crafty Bud pulled some strings….He’s good like that.

  5. Jonny 5 - May 31, 2011 at 9:30 AM

    Man….. This crap keeps on happening. Do ballplayers have a state by state handbook on how to get out of DUI cases? BTW, Joe Walsh now dislikes you. And I have a crush on his daughter. mmm mmm!

  6. dailyrev - May 31, 2011 at 9:48 AM

    Isn’t money a magical thing? It can throw a green shadow over the clearest and most obvious facts; it can make wrong right and a driver a passenger; it can ask, “what is your definition of ‘is’?” and be taken very seriously, as if it means something. Money can make words and facts turn into turds and whacks. God how I love money…

  7. clydeserra - May 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM

    Its not money or magic. As I recall, the officers first contacted Cabrera when he was out of the car. No one put him inside the car. He made no statements that put himself behind the wheel. I think most people would beat the DMV hearing. Likely the criminal case too.

    • paperlions - May 31, 2011 at 11:24 AM

      Well, then he sure as heck better be able to provide an explanation as to how he and his car arrived at that location. Because failing someone saying they drove it and then left him stranded, magic is the only viable option remaining.

      • bklynbaseball - May 31, 2011 at 12:59 PM

        he doesn’t have to prove anything, according to the law. the onus is on the prosecution. if he didn’t say “yeah, i was driving”, and he was out of the car when the cops got to the scene, then they cannot say he was driving drunk, because he was not driving when they encountered him.

      • patsandsox - May 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM

        The way I read the arrest report, and I could be wrong, they had him sitting in the driver seat asking if they knew who he was while taking chugs off his bottle of whiskey.

        So please tell me your point again? I know there has to be some logical explanation that your idiotic post didnt address

      • clydeserra - May 31, 2011 at 2:23 PM

        Are you saying my idiotic post? I thought he was outside the car when he was contacted.

        Even if he was sitting in the drivers seat, it doesn’t change the calculus, it makes Cabrera’s case harder, but its the same “no drive” defense.

        You have to be driving a car to get a DUI. the Prosecution has the burden to prove that you were driving. If the only evidence is you were near your car drunk, they have failed to prove you were driving.

        I don’t know why you would call any of the posts here idiotic, they all seem reasonable to me. Even Paper lions doesn’t seem to be talking about the criminal case, but the case of public opinion. And when people are unfamiliar with the criminal law process, they often think there is some nefarious moneyed elite that get away with everything and its not true.

      • dluxxx - May 31, 2011 at 5:08 PM

        Uhh, the cops were called because he threatened some dudes at a bar. If he was alone then, and then found at the scene, then he’s guilty of drunk driving. If not, then he has a chance to get off.

  8. The Common Man/www.platoonadvantage.com - May 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM

    And he walked all that way while he was blind drunk and still managed to find his car! We’re not giving this guy enough credit.

  9. patsandsox - May 31, 2011 at 2:48 PM

    clydeserra I guess I owe you an appology. I do not like name calling and I am p o at myself for stooping to that.

    I am just saying that I dont think a non celebrity would have gotten his license back so easily.

    I was an a s s for calling your post idiotic and wanted to take it back as soon as I hit post.

    Everyone is free to post here with some idiot like me putting them down for it.

    • clydeserra - May 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

      figured. Its not a big deal.

      The defense does not fly with you mother, but in the courts, its the way it has to work otherwise many people could be wrongly convicted because they were near a crime scene without a rock solid reason why.

  10. patsandsox - May 31, 2011 at 2:50 PM

    should have said without some one lime putting them down for it. My proof reading skills are another thing I do not do to well

  11. opiedamus - May 31, 2011 at 4:06 PM

    @ clydeserra: I posted basically the same thing when it was reported and got blasted. Until we know the facts, see the report (that may or may not be accurate), and are able to see the video, there is no way anyone can blame celebrity and money for getting him off. If the keys weren’t in the ignition, if he wasn’t driving and didn’t say that he was, and for the love of all that is holy, if he was out of the vehicle drinking from a bottle of whiskey – then you can only charge him with public drunk.

    I will say this, if he won his Admin. Hearing, there is little to no way he doesn’t win a trial. The prosecution has to prove he was driving…..it’s almost as important as proving his is drunk.

    • clydeserra - May 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM

      Admin hearings in CA are harder to win because of the lack of evidence rules. I imagine all states are similar. I agree its tough road for the prosecution.

      As for the comments, meh, I think I read a poll a few years ago that asked people if they would be for or against certain constitutional amendments, but instead of asking about new laws, the pollsters asked about the existing bill of rights. The fourth, fifth and sixth went down in flames, like 80% against. It seems most people don’t understand how the courts work.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (6347)
  2. J. Lester (4062)
  3. Y. Tomas (4002)
  4. H. Ramirez (3745)
  5. A. LaRoche (2598)
  1. T. Hunter (2394)
  2. G. Stanton (2381)
  3. J. Upton (2328)
  4. J. Bruce (2202)
  5. M. Scherzer (2109)