The NFL’s Demarcus Robinson ruling has emerged. As expected, a suspension will commence in connection with the veteran wide receiver’s DUI case.
Robinson received a three-game suspension Wednesday, Kyle Shanahan said (via KNBR). Although this is certainly not surprising, it deals another blow to a depleted 49ers receiving corps. Robinson launched a preemptive appeal, but his suspension matches Jordan Addison‘s three-gamer for a DUI arrest.
Shanahan said the appeal process is not over, but the team is bracing for the three-game ban to stick. Robinson was arrested in November 2024 for suspicion of a DUI; by January, a formal charge emerged. In July, he pleaded no contest to set the stage for this suspension. Signing a two-year deal in free agency, Robinson is in line to miss games against the Seahawks, Saints and Cardinals.
This further limits the 49ers at receiver. San Francisco has Brandon Aiyuk on its active/PUP list, and a shift to the reserve/PUP list is all but assured for a player who did not suffer a clean ACL tear last season. Aiyuk recovery issues are set to delay his return until at least mid-October. That takes two 49ers weapons out of the mix, and it is not yet certain when Jauan Jennings will return from a calf injury.
Jennings has missed most of training camp due to his calf issue, with a contract push — a year after signing an extension as an RFA — clouding the 49ers wideout’s near future as well. Fourth-round rookie Jordan Watkins is also dealing with a high ankle sprain that could keep him off the field to open the season.
As a result, the 49ers are looking for help at receiver. The team traded Deebo Samuel in March, doing so while knowing Aiyuk’s outlook. At the time of the Samuel trade, San Francisco certainly expected to have Jennings available in Week 1. But that is not certain. This would place plenty of pressure on 2024 first-rounder Ricky Pearsall. While Pearsall — who recovered from a gunshot wound sustained last summer to play in 11 rookie-year games — could be complemented by the 49ers’ hopeful WR cast by midseason, the team will start shorthanded.
Robinson, 31 in September, spent the past two seasons with the Rams as their third receiver. Playing ahead of Tutu Atwell for most of his time in Los Angeles, Robinson combined for 57 receptions, 876 yards and 11 touchdowns from 2023-24. That stretch garnered the ex-Alex Smith/Patrick Mahomes Chiefs target an $8MM deal with a $6MM guarantee. This suspension would threaten to void that guarantee, which would affect Robinson’s 2026 money (as a vested veteran, his 2025 pay will lock in next month).
Make phone calls. Tyler Boyd. Alec Pierce. Somebody
Alec Pierce isn’t going anywhere, and no thanks to Tyler Boyd. Got a feeling Amari Cooper might be signing with them, maybe Gabe Davis
They just got skyy moore
Nobody gets arrested for “suspicion” of a crime. They get arrested because they’re accused of the crime. The suspicion part is done with at that point; if someone is merely “suspected” of having done something, that’s not enough to arrest him/her.
Aside from that, three games seems fair. What would make Robinson’s situation different than Addison’s? Perhaos they think that the BAC was lower, and that justifies a lesser suspension? Maybe some argument involving the traffic offense that accompanied the DUI (some sort of extreme speeding or something?) on its face, it seems pretty fair to suspend Robinson the same amount of length as Addison. If somebody has more information on that aspect of the process, maybe they can educate me.
Yes they do. One of the definitions of the word suspect… “ a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offense.
Arrests require probable cause. Probable cause means that the crime occurred, and that the person arrested probably did it. That’s not suspicion, it’s an accusation. Suspicion that a person did something or knows something about a crime that may have occurred is enough to detain a person, but it is not enough to arrest a person or charge a person.
When that person goes to court, the state doesn’t say, We suspect this person of committing DUI.” They say “We accuse this person of committing DUI.” The state is convinced that the person did the thing that he/she is accused of. The charging officer needs to believe that the person committed the crime, not merely suspect it. I don’t think that the terminology (that is, the use of the word “suspect”) changes anything. Police are used to using that word, but after arrest, the case moves to a prosecution phase where suspicion is no longer a viable standard of proof. We may call the person a suspect at that point, but after being charged, that person really is a defendant. Reasonable suspicion doesn’t really have much to do with much at that point.
When they arrest someone for suspicion of DUI and they refuse to blow, they arrest someone suspected of a crime. They can’t prove it yet without a blood test. By the time they get to court they have blood results and can now accuse them.
No offense, but no, that’s not how it works. Nobody is “proven” guilty of any crime at the time of arrest. That has to happen in court. And you definitely can’t arrest someone without an accusation. You need a charge-an accusation-to arrest someone. As for DUI, not only are blood tests not always used, they are also not required for DUI prosecution. I am not familiar with California’s laws, but blowing is not required, either, in any state that I know. Both of those make DUI (or equivalent charges-in my state, the BAC based law is called DUAC) prosecution easier, but there is no requirement that either occur for a DUI charge to be made.
So, no, law enforcement cannot arrest someone without probable cause and then produce later at trial. If you have probable cause, you’ve graduated past having suspicion, and you NEED probable cause to arrest. What I’m saying is that in order to arrest, you absolutely need to move past “suspicion” and get to “probably did it”. It’s legally defined, it’s not just a colloquial term. It’s actually defined terminology. If I just suspect you of doing something, I can detain you, but I need to define a crime and accuse you of probably doing it to arrest you. It’s a greater burden of proof.
Interesting. I watched my mom get arrested on suspicion of DUI when I was a kid. She refused to blow and automatically lost her license for a year.
Yeah, all I’m saying is that the “suspicion” part is the first stage before arrest. It’s the figuring out part. By the time an arrest comes, the person is actively being full on accused. It’s terminology, but legally, it’s important.
Three levels of proof, basically-
1 Reasonable suspicion – a crime occurred or may have occurred and the person in question might know something related to it or participated. Enforcement limit: person can be detained.
2. Probable cause – a crime definitely occurred and the person in question probably did it. Enforcement limit: Person can be (should be) arrested.
3. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt – A crime definitely occurred and no reasonable person would believe that the person in question didn’t do it. This is determined by court, not police. Enforcement limit: Prison or fine.
They’re just legally defined, so “suspicion” isn’t enough for arrest. If a cop is arresting for suspicion, he/she is depriving someone of his/her rights because there isn’t enough proof. Of course the person arrested or an outside observer might think there’s not enough, but whether there is or isn’t is determined by the court. Sometimes this is in a preliminary hearing, which is a hearing whose only purpose is to determine whether law enforcement had probable cause to arrest; it doesn’t try the actual case, because it has a lower level of proof. It only exists to say “Yes, at the time, the officer had enough to make an arrest.” It differentiates between suspicion and probable cause.
@AK185. There are a lot of people arrested (and many people convicted) of crimes they did not commit. Arrest in America often means “the mayor doesn’t like you” or “a US Senator is very unhappy with you” or you didn’t surrender the assets someone in a position of authority wanted.
This idea that arrest denotes guilt is absurd.
On the other side, many criminals are not arrested at all because they are mayors, sons of Senators or Presidents or members of powerful cliques.
You are living in your own utopia, distant from the messy real world of law & order, power & vulnerability. Is an NFL receiver privileged? Depends on who owns the team, where the NFL receiver is, but the privilege a sports star is insignificant to what the business and political class enjoy.
I don’t think that you understand at all what I wrote. I only described the legal process. “Guilt” in this case clearly means in the eyes of the law, and not in the eyes of God or as an absolute. Arrest does not determine guilt, and I certainly never this to be so. That’s why I used the word “accused”, because the state (through law enforcement) is accusing the subject of some crime (which now turns him/her from a subject into a defendant). This is legal terminology that I am using, because it is the terminology used by the court whose definitions determine how cases are tried. This is not my opinion in any way, shape or form. This is a description of a process.
I’ve double checked US law. Individuals are arrested all the time on suspicion of committing a crime. Once in custody, the police will decide whether to charge the individual with a crime. Whether arrested or charged, none of this in the Common Law justice countries implies guilt.
Guilt is only established by conviction or an uncoerced confession.
I have great, great respect for you, Alec, but…that’s not how it works. You cannot arrest someone and charge him/her later, in any state. You arrest when you have a charge to arrest for. Convictions happen in court, which is what I was saying. I’ll say it again to not be misunderstood-I never said that arrest denotes guilt. Arrest denotes an accusation. A charge. That level of proof is known as probable cause-a crime occurred and this person probably did it. That’s all an arrest means. To have a crime, you must have a charge.
Confessions also don’t have any standardized value, as their worth varies case to case. They don’t always close cases, and sometimes even hurt them. A confession could be false, coerced, misleading, or something else that just hinders the actual investigation. Most crimes are solved without them. They’re not an automatic gotcha; they still require independent validation by other facts in most cases.
Ok but some states literally call that specific charge “suspicion of dui” like what’s on my moms fkn arrest record? Lol
If so, I apologize, but it’s still counter-intuitive to the arrest process, which is why I’m sensitive to the wording. Like, if I suspect you of committing a crime, I talk to you, I don’t arrest you. Those concepts are national, have been argued before the Supreme Court, etc. I can’t claim to be an expert on every state, but that seems seriously strange to me.
We’re good sir. I agree it’s strange and I also appreciate the conversation!
Always, and I appreciate your candor and explanation.
Why the league projects end zones messages to the fan so they can project the internal garage into their dark corner with less notice.