Huggins might be in trouble, DUI is good, Bees are bad

Id be curious what that might be.

There was certainly cause to initiate with him given he was struggling with a shredded tire at the time, so they couldnt get the stop thrown away for lack of probable cause.

And even if they were able to get the breathalyzer result thrown out somehow, the testimony of the officer along with any camera footage would seem enough to get a conviction.
I believed the reports, but I’ve seen enough that were essentially fabricated when cross referenced with video evidence. It’s certainly plausible that there’s a big gap between reality and what the cops said happened.
 
He isn’t getting his job back, so this is all just noise to me

For sure. This will all be about extracting a settlement from WVU. WVU isn't going to want to fight this out in the courts for years, even if they'd likely win it'd be a protracted, distracting mess that would be bad for their brand. He (or his lawyers) have figured out that they have the cards to force WVU to pay to make him go away.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ISUAlum2002 and Pat
For sure. This will all be about extracting a settlement from WVU. WVU isn't going to want to fight this out in the courts for years, even if they'd likely win it'd be a protracted, distracting mess that would be bad for their brand. He (or his lawyers) have figured out that they have the cards to force WVU to pay to make him go away.
Yep. And then the relationship will be bitter like Indiana and Knight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ianoconnor
Is there a case where Bob is on the side of the road with a shredded tire with the car off (obviously not driving) that invalidates the DUI charge? If the cops didn't witness a crime being committed (ie driving under the influence), does that hold up to have charges dismissed? I mean we all know he was driving drunk as a skunk but is this the route his lawyer is trying?
It depends on the rest of the evidence. There is no requirement that the officer observed the defendant operating the vehicle, but it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt somehow. Direct observation is obviously better.
 
I am friends with them.

And they like me.
Well, then give them an all other satanic, stinging devils a message from me:

200w.gif
 
It depends on the rest of the evidence. There is no requirement that the officer observed the defendant operating the vehicle, but it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt somehow. Direct observation is obviously better.

Maybe he's going for a diversion program. Looks like that's a thing in PA. Not sure if that program only considers DUI's in state or if it also takes into account the other out of state one.

 
I've never really quit such a high profile job. Anyone know if it's normal for a coach to "sign" a resignation?
I can't speak for college coaches specifically but in most organizations there are some protocols that need to be followed before termination/resignation is official.

Not saying this it true in Huggins case but as an example of rules, there are some companies that will not let you terminate an employee unless said employee been put on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan).
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt
For a little while, I was sympathetic towards Huggins because it seemed like he was dealing with alcoholism and his legacy was severely tarnished. That sympathy was erased now that he is trying to use a loop-hole to try and demand his job back (likely just wants a monetary settlement).
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron