Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Dude, your not helping your cause much, Vick busted for pot!

Vick tested positive in a urine sample submitted on Sept. 13 — 17 days after entering a plea agreement in federal court on felony charges related to dogfighting. He faces up to five years in prison and will be sentenced on Dec. 10.

Vick supporters turn out for town meeting
Va. county prosecutor plans to indict Vick
Vick defaults on $2.5M loan from Canadian bank, suit says
Va. charges against Vick may be delayed

As part of his pretrial release, Vick agreed to "refrain from use or unlawful possession of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance."
A probation officer, Patricia Locket-Ross, petitioned Judge Henry E. Hudson to impose stricter conditions on Monday.
In court documents filed Wednesday, Hudson ordered that Vick submit to any method of testing, "for determining whether the defendant is using a prohibited substance." Such methods may be used with random frequency and include urine testing and the wearing of a sweat patch.
In other conditions ordered by the court, Vick is restricted to his Virginia residence every day from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The home confinement will include electronic monitoring and Vick must pay for the service. The judge also ordered Vick to continue in a substance therapy program and participate in mental health counseling.
One of Vick's co-defendents in the federal case, Quanis Phillips, was taken into custody at his plea agreement hearing on Aug. 17 for admitting to the use of marijuana. He later petitioned the court to be released, but the motion was denied.
Vick was suspended indefinitely by the NFL for violating the league's player conduct policy on Aug. 27, the day he entered his federal plea agreement. The AJC has inquired to the NFL as to whether the positive drug test violates the league's substance abuse policy.
The court order comes one day after Vick was indicted by a Surry County grand jury on two state felony charges related to dogfighting. Vick is set to be arraigned Oct. 3 in the state case.

No comments: