Hell hath no fury like a woman wielding a urostomy bag scorned... Reportedly, an ex-girlfriend was lurking outside the home of her ex-boyfriend, when she was detected and confronted. She immediately attempted to hit her ex's brother with her automobile and then drove away. When police pulled her over soon afterwards, she detached her urostomy bag and hurled it at the three officers, splashing them with urine.

Not only can this woman be charged with attempted murder for trying to hit a man with her vehicle, but she also can get in trouble for assault on police officers. Though her attempt did not connect directly, under criminal law, the throwing of a bag of urine would constitute assault if it hit an officer. Here, the liquid did make contact sufficient to uphold a simple assault charge. This is analogous to one individual spitting on another. Even though he or she didn't actually reach out and touch someone in a layman's understanding, the spit itself acts as an extension of the person and thus criminal exposure results. The same is true here, as urine acts as an extension of the woman by hitting the police with it. Naturally, her more urgently serious problem is the attempted murder charge, but still interesting regarding throwing a bag of urine. Either charge should be handled by an experienced attorney.

Braylon Edwards, it was reported recently, upon being pulled over in the early morning hours for having overly tinted windows, was charged with drinking and driving. In response, he first suggested that perhaps he might just leave the car and head on home (really?), then questioned the legality of police procedure which stopped him for the windows only to discover that he had been drinking, without performing a field sobriety test.

Putting Edwards' off the cuff analysis aside, there are two issues here regarding his legal situation. Firstly, he is on probation in Ohio connected to aggravated disorderly conduct charges. It is unknown whether his Ohio probation will be affected by a DUI arrest in New York. In New Jersey, for example, the DUI charge is under Title 39, which governs motor vehicles. It is not a violation of the criminal code unless there is an injury. Thus, it would be doubtful that it could be a legal setback his most recent charges occurred in New Jersey. DUI is a serious offense, however, and has been treated with appropriate gravity by the Courts in recent years, so it is possible that Edward's actions could have some impact on his probation where discretion is permitted.

Secondly, the overly tinted windows caused the police to stop Edwards. The police cannot arbitrarily pull over drivers, however if a car has very tinted windows, which are illegal, they can lead to a police stop, and the noticeable odor of alcohol provides the police officer probable cause to inquire about the driver's level of intoxication, and subsequently, to request that a driver step out of the vehicle.

If you are trying to stay out of trouble, drive a vehicle that will stay under the radar, and attract no attention. Perhaps professional athletes are not familiar with this approach to life. According to reports, should he receive up to a year in prison, he may find it harder to go unnoticed among fellow inmates. Further, spontaneous legal analysis of police behavior is ill-advised, and best left to the skilled attorney that you should immediately consult should you find yourself in any similar situation.

Lawrence Taylor pleading "not guilty" to an indictment reportedly alleging that he and teenager had sex is certainly newsworthy. His past is certainly checkered. Legally speaking, however, regardless of the caliber of his attorney, an arraignment is really a non-event. It will get big headlines, but a defendant has two options: plead "guilty" or "not guilty." There is nothing else a defendant may say at an arraignment. Thus, if a defendant pleads "guilty," the case is over and the Judge will schedule him for sentencing. In the alternative, if a person pleads "not guilty" the Judge will inform him of his rights and then tell him when their next Court appearance is required.

An arraignment is significant if a person does not have an attorney as it would be the time that the court would inform them of pending charges, allow them to plead either "guilty" or "not guilty." If he pleads "not guilty" and is indigent, this would be the time the public defender's office would receive the case. At this point, the defense counsel may receive their first indication of a potential plea bargain with the prosecutor's office; however, this is just one step in the criminal process. Taylor will appear again in court for status conference long before any trial is scheduled to occur.

A purpose of an arraignment is merely for the State to inform an individual on the record what the charges are pending against him, following a police investigation and grand jury indictment. If a police investigation culminates in allegations of a crime, the State submits that evidence gathered to a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is a closed proceeding where only the prosecutor is present. Witnesses and law enforcement provide testimony to those sitting on the jury, and then the grand jury determines whether or not to indict an individual of the alleged crime. It is a very low standard; it does not mean that the evidence meets the high "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but only that the prosecution is given the opportunity to try the case against the defendant. Once the Grand Jury chooses to indict, an arraignment is the next step. The purpose of an arraignment is for the court to formally read the indictment to the Defendant and inform them of their rights. If a person is out on bail since the police signed criminal complaints against them, the bail will normally be continued. If a person is already in jail, he will most likely remain there unless bail was lowered or he somehow obtained the ability to pay for or post bail.

In this case, even if a plea bargain is reached, the drama for L.T.'s legal battle has yet to come, for sure.