Skip to content

Prosecutors drop DUI charge against James Loney

Feb 1, 2012, 3:42 PM EDT

James Loney AP

James Loney was arrested in November and charged with suspicion of driving under the influence after crashing his Maserati into multiple other cars, but now TMZ reports that prosecutors have dropped the charges.

Loney refused to take a breathalyzer test and the police reported noted that he “exhibited eyelid tremors and his shirt was soiled and moist from perspiration, from his armpits down to his waistline.”

He also never told the Dodgers about the arrest, but police took a blood sample to test and the results came back negative, so the charges were dropped “due to insufficient evidence to proceed.” And neither the incident nor Loney’s sub par production on the field stopped Los Angeles from signing him to a one-year, $6.4 million deal.

  1. dondada10 - Feb 1, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    Who said the days of the good ol’ boys was over?

  2. koufaxmitzvah - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

    Who said you need to evidence to convict somebody? Not in the court of public opinion.

    • JBerardi - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM

      At least he didn’t use any steroids. That’s the real crime.

      • vivabear - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM

        Yes, being in possession of illegal steroids is, in fact, a crime.

      • redbirdsin7 - Feb 2, 2012 at 7:19 PM

        did you see his numbers last year? 6.4 mil can buy you better steroids than whatever he got

  3. paperlions - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

    So….if I am interpreting these responses correctly:

    change your name to make money playing baseball = acme of evil and must be punished

    Drive drunk and endanger the lives of other drivers = it’s okay to get off because no one got hurt this time

    • kopy - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM

      They can’t prove he was drunk, though, and there’s no condemning logical reason to assume he was. That’s why the charge was dropped. There are reasons for refusing a breathalyzer test beyond being drunk, especially when you consent to going to the station for an alternate test.

      • paperlions - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:46 PM

        Being able to prove it in court is only loosely related to truth. Like most people that get off on these types of charges, he was most likely guilty.

      • kopy - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:49 PM

        There’s always that possibility, but they weren’t just unable to prove it in court. They also couldn’t prove it in the blood sample they took from him that night.

    • vivabear - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:42 PM

      Paper – how are you coming to this conclusion Loney was driving drunk?

    • Jonny 5 - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM

      Funny, in my state (NJ) refusing the breath test is not an option as it equals a guilty plea to DUI.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM

      Let me see if I have your thinking down. If someone gets into a car accident, that person has to be drunk. And if there is no evidence that the guy was drunk when getting into a car accident, he still must have been drunk because he got into a car accident.

      Not only is that awesome, but I would say, it’s frigging rad, too.

      • paperlions - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM

        Here is the complete list of reasons to refuse a breathalizer test:

        1) You are drunk

      • vivabear - Feb 1, 2012 at 4:54 PM

        Believe it or not, there are people who don’t trust the reliability and/or accuracy of breathalyzers – that could be one other possible reason. Or cops, some people don’t trust cops.

      • paperlions - Feb 1, 2012 at 5:37 PM

        Ladies and Gentlemen, the accountability generation.

      • dondada10 - Feb 1, 2012 at 5:43 PM

        Paper, you and I are gonna get slaughtered with thumbs downs and what not, but I don’t get it. Take the breathalyzer if you’re not drunk. They may not be “accurate” in the sense of pinpointing the amount of alcohol in your system, but if there’s none there then it’ll reflect that.

        Refusing the breathalyzer and taking a blood test is a strategy for beating DUIs. That’s why 15 states prohibit it.

        As per: http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/blood-tests.htm

        Furthermore, some states have developed a fairly lax set of rules for blood testing, whereby testing methods other than GC and GC-MS can be used. In most hospitals, alternative testing methods are often utilized, because they are FASTER. Time is money in a hospital.

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2012 at 6:13 PM

        I once failed a breathalyser when not drunk. Mouthwash in the car on the way to a job interview will do that. A blood test subsequently proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I was completely alcohol free (except for my stupid mouthwash). I think some models of breathalysers have about a +/-20% tolerance. Some other volatile compounds can also drive a high BAC result from breathalysers. For instance, diabetics will tend to have BAC readings that are higher simply due to acetone in their exhaled breath. Now that I think about it, I do believe being on severe restrictive diet can drive acetone levels in your breath as well…don’t quote me on that either but I don’t see any logical reason why it wouldn’t be so. I think there are other things, like gasoline fumes that’ll render a false high. A blood test is the last word on your BAC: its virtually never wrong.

      • cur68 - Feb 1, 2012 at 6:23 PM

        Huh. Just read Don’s link. It would never have occurred to me that the chain of custody of the sample could be attacked like that for a simple BAC. I guess that blood analysis of BC isn’t so foolproof then. Devious creatures, these humans.

    • clydeserra - Feb 1, 2012 at 11:37 PM

      Not Drunk, they took a blood sample. It would show drunk or under the influence.

      In CA, andI would imagine all states, it is OK to refuse the roadside breath test. It is also OK to refuse any one of the three tests, breath, blood, urine. You must submit to one of them, or lose your license for a year.

      You can still get convicted with a refusal, the same way people were convicted in the days of yor before the new fangled scieney tests. WIth testimony, but its not an “automatic DUI”

  4. JB (the original) - Feb 1, 2012 at 6:01 PM

    I get the feeling he wasn’t on alcohol……

  5. wlschneider09 - Feb 1, 2012 at 10:56 PM

    Look, it’s fairly obvious that no judge or jury would believe that Loney could hit .010

  6. westcoastredbird - Feb 2, 2012 at 12:11 AM

    He doesn’t remember hitting anything? Neither do the Dodger fans. He couldn’t fall out of a boat and hit water. I remember the accident I was driving from West Hills to Chino Hills and he added an hour to my drive. As a Cardinal fan I don’t wish this garbage on Dodger fans. There’s nothing worse than a 1st baseman with warning track power. I wish the Dodger fans good luck with their new owner and new season. And also with their hole at first base.

  7. shelbydawkins - Feb 2, 2012 at 10:37 AM

    I’m not a baseball fan anymore… and this piece of crap only reinforces it… they don’t give a damn about you or me. They are only in it for the money. I’m rich, you’re poor, you work, i pick boogers in a dugout and scatch my balls. MLB go to hell.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

The Jon Lester-Yoenis Cespedes trade is a win-win
Top 10 MLB Player Searches