DETROIT – Detroit Lions wide receiver Jameson Williams won’t face charges for a gun that was found during a traffic stop, and prosecutors explained why.
What happened
Williams, 23, was in a car with his brother at 1:02 a.m. Oct. 8, 2024, when it was pulled over by two Detroit police officers.
Police said the black sedan was going faster than the speed limit and being driven “in an unsafe manner” while also having an obscured license plate.
Williams' brother was driving the car at the time, officials said.
Police pulled the car over and spoke to the two men. The driver told them that there were two guns in the car and handed over his valid Concealed Pistol License and driver’s license.
Officers learned that one of the guns was registered to Williams, who was in the passenger’s seat. That gun was found on the front passenger floorboard, and Williams confirmed it was his, police said.
His brother’s gun was found on the back floorboard behind the driver’s seat.
Williams and his brother told police that they were driving in an unsafe way to make sure they weren’t being followed because Williams plays for the Lions.
Williams was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, but he was later released at the scene when a Detroit police supervisor arrived.
His brother was issued traffic citations, police said.
Why Williams won’t be charged
Wayne County prosecutors reviewed the warrant request from this case on Oct. 25, 2024.
In the end, they determined that Williams would not be charged because he wasn’t physically holding the gun, and his brother, a valid CPL holder, said he was in possession of both guns in the car.
Prosecutors also pointed out that Williams was eligible for a CPL.
Legal reasoning
One of the questions at hand was whether the brother was in possession of Williams' gun as the driver of the car, and whether that is legal because of his valid CPL.
Prosecutors said they haven’t found specific case law as to whether one person’s CPL can extent to another person to spare them from liability.
Another question was whether legislative intent should guide the charging decision.
The legislative intent of the statue, “license to purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol or to purchase a firearm; issuance; qualifications; application,” says that its purpose is, in part, to “create a standardized system for issuing concealed pistol licenses to prevent criminals and other violent individuals from obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol.”
Prosecutors determined that Williams “would be qualified to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol and transport the same." They also said there’s no reason to believe Williams is “a criminal or dangerous individual.”
In the end, prosecutors found that there were no other cases where these facts all applied:
- The driver has a valid CPL.
- The driver told police about both guns in the car.
- The other gun owner admits to owning the gun but doesn’t say he put the gun in the car.
- The gun is not physically in possession of the second person.
- The second person is eligible for a CPL.
“Because the case law is silent regarding the specific issue, and the legislative intent of the CPL statute does not support charges under these facts, no charges will issue in this matter, and the warrant is denied,” prosecutors concluded.
They also noted that they usually wouldn’t reveal someone’s name in this type of decision, but did so because Williams had been identified in previous media reports.
Here’s a full statement from Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy:
We have looked at this case thoroughly and objectively. We did not consider that Mr. Williams is a Detroit professional athlete in our decision-making. We have charged Detroit area athletes before and would not have hesitated to do so again if the facts of this case could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When it comes to charging decisions, we do not take into consideration who the potential defendant is, how much power and influence they have, or how beloved they may be. We deal with the facts and the law only.
While no case has identical facts, we can look at similar facts, if possible, to aid us in our decision making. We really could not recall any case that had facts that mirrored this case. Every case is fact-specific. As always, we apply the alleged facts to the existing law. And the applicable law and its accompanying legislative history is far from clear.
We had a team of experienced lawyers look at this case -- as we often do -- especially when the law is unclear or unsettled. We all agreed that this decision is the right and just one. And I am personally certain that the right decision has been made with these specific and unique set of facts.
The CPL holder here was the driver and had care, custody, and control of the car. Guidance is needed for the future on, ‘How many weapons can a valid CPL say that they have control over?’ Despite all of this, if Mr. Williams had the gun on his person, he would have been charged.
I urge the legislature to immediately look closely at this law so that the prosecutors in Michigan can have steady and meaningful guidance in the future.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy
