I read about the crash and his conviction. Some excerpts:
Hours before the incident, Ruggs and his girlfriend, Kiara Kilgo-Washington, were seen drinking at a Topgolf location on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise. They left after midnight in his Chevrolet Corvette. Police produced digital evidence shortly thereafter showing that, at approximately 3:39 a.m., driving 156 miles per hour (251 km/h), Ruggs slammed into the Toyota RAV4 driven by Tintor. The Clark County Coroner determined that Tintor and her dog burned to death as her vehicle was engulfed in flames following the collision.
...
Police reports showed that Ruggs had refused to take a field sobriety test, and his blood test, taken two hours following the crash, revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.161%, more than twice the legal limit in Nevada.
...
Ruggs' defense attorney, David Chesnoff, argued that Ruggs was unable to submit to a field sobriety test because of the injuries he sustained in the accident, and claimed that the blood test should not be admissible as evidence since the police did not have probable cause to obtain a blood test. Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman rejected Chesnoff's arguments and ruled the blood test admissible as evidence in the case.
...
On May 10, 2023, as part of a plea agreement, Ruggs pleaded guilty to one count of felony DUI resulting in death and one count of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. Prosecutors said they reached a plea deal due to concerns the blood draw would be thrown out, and with it the only evidence to support the felony DUI charge. They were not willing to chance Ruggs only facing charges of reckless driving, which could have only resulted in probation.
Er, WHAT???
Police had witnesses that he had been drinking, and video of him driving at 156mph and crashing not long afterwards, but there's some doubt as to whether they had probable cause to do a blood test? What kind of bullshit is that?
So they give him a plea deal based on thae chance that the blood test would somehow be ruled inadmissable, and because they were worried that he would only get probation for reckless driving.
Probation??? For driving at 156mph and crasing into another car, killing the driver and her dog? That's considered an appropriate sentence? Holy shit, where I live if you kill someone driving at 150+mph, you're getting a manslaughter charge for sure. Plus the fact that refusing a breathalyser test at the scene is counted as failing it, and they can take blood for a test after any incident involving driving a car.
Are the laws that lenient all across the USA, or is it just the state where this happened?
Are US courts usually so lenient when it comes to this kind of thing?
www.espn.com
