A Florida State Attorney has said Tiger Woods could have faced jail during an impassioned address on the details behind the golf icon’s driving ban.
Woods has been banned from driving for five years and fined after the sporting superstar changed his plea over a crash in Florida on March 27.
Emphasizing that he would rather have been fishing than speaking to the press, Thomas Bakkedahl explained that the 50-year-old would have faced a 60-day jail term for not giving a urine sample.
The American reached an agreement to plea no contest to a reduced charge of reckless driving and refusal to submit to a lawful test. He was ordered to pay $1,000 (£742).
Tiger Woods: What Florida State Attorney said
“I’m not an idiot – although my wife may disagree – and I know that people are out there and they’re saying ‘he’s going to get Mr Woods special attention due to his wealth and his fame and his popularity,’” said Bakkedahl.
“And then there are going to be other people, like a guy I rode up on the elevator with this morning, who are going to say, ‘Why in the hell don’t you leave this guy alone? Why are you looking to get your 15 minutes of fame on the back of Tiger Woods?’
“Let me be very clear about something: I would rather be just about anywhere in the world than here today in front of you. I’d like to be out on Lake Okeechobee pitching a worm into the Kissimmee grass, catching bass.
“But I’m here today because I’m going to tell you how this system works. What I’ve come to realize over 35 years is the public really doesn’t know how we do what we do or why we do what we do.
“That’s the point, because I think that the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system is paramount.
“To the extent we lose faith in the criminal justice system and in our courts and in the rule of law, you cannot have a thriving democracy. Now, people are probably saying, ‘Well, you kind of overstate your case.’ So be it. I’ll never get this platform again, so I’m going to do it.”
Tiger Woods crash case: Burden ‘exceedingly high’
“The calculus is this: two components,” outlined Bakkedahl. “There is the law. I don’t make the law. This is probably not going to be a surprise to you guys, but what we do is not brain surgery as prosecutors.
“I don’t have the authority to disregard the law, ignore the law, change the law. I’m not a progressive prosecutor.
“I follow the law as created by the legislature. The legislature tells me what is a crime in the state of Florida, and then I apply that law. Very simple. Not very hard. Open a book and, if you can read, you know the law.
“Number two: the facts. I don’t create facts. Facts are brought to me. Information is brought to me. I digest that information.
I’m looking for – I believe – that there is an immutable, objective truth. We may look at facts and have different interpretations of what they tell us, but I take the information that’s given to me by law enforcement, by other sources.
“I don’t get to manufacture facts, I can’t conceal facts, I can’t ignore facts. As a prosecutor, what you do is you take the facts and you overlay them with the law, and then you make a number of determinations.
“What I’m certifying upon filing is that I have a good-faith basis to believe I can prove the case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt — the highest burden of proof at law.
“And you know why it’s that way? It’s the highest standard of proof because I have the authority, by virtue of my mere signature, to take your property, to take your freedom and, in extreme conditions and circumstances, take your very life.
“So the burden is exceedingly high. The standard burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same in a misdemeanor as it is in a death penalty case. That high standard of proof carries throughout.
“So when a case comes into my office and we make a filing decision, it’s not static. The case doesn’t remain unchanged or in the same state as it was the minute it came into my office, because things continue to happen.
“Many times, defendants have a different take on a case and on facts than you do, and their attorneys might present you with additional information.
“You may subpoena records, you may execute search warrants, you may engage in any number of activities that have the following impact on that case.
“I have to be open to new information. I don’t have the luxury – we go back to listening – I don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing my facts.”
Tiger Woods case ‘uniquely more difficult’
“Eldrick ‘Tiger’ Woods was charged with driving under the influence here in Martin County back on March 27th of 2026,” pointed out Bakkedahl.
“For DUI, which many of you know means driving under the influence – in some jurisdictions it’s called driving impaired, every jurisdiction has a different name – I’m going to tell you how we prove it.
“What are the elements? How do you prove DUI? Pretty simple. The defendant – the state must prove beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt – drove a motor vehicle.
“Nobody’s disputing the fact that Mr Woods drove his black Range Rover on March 27th, 2026 on Jupiter Island where he had a wreck.
“The second element: the defendant drove or operated that motor vehicle, that truck, while under the influence of a controlled substance.
“That, from a prosecution perspective and a proof perspective, makes the case unique and uniquely more difficult to prove.
“So the first thing is: is he under the influence of a controlled substance? I have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Finally, I have to prove that as a result of him being under the influence of a particular controlled substance, his normal faculties were impaired.
“That means his ability to see, to walk, to talk, to judge distances, to drive a car, to engage in those activities that we all do regularly on a daily basis. I’ve got to prove impairment.
“This case turned out to be a particularly difficult DUI to prove… you’ve all seen the videos of Mr Woods and his performance on those tests, and you must be scratching your head saying, ‘What the hell are these?
[People think] ‘I’ve never seen this before. I’m accustomed to: stand there, tilt your head back, close your eyes, count to 30, walk the line, lift your leg,’ so forth and so on.
“What makes this case more difficult is that Mr Woods has had multiple back surgeries and a significant number of surgeries and operations on his leg.
“The officer on scene elected to administer a set of field sobriety tests that did not require him to stand.
“You saw those tests. One of them was, as I call derisively, the patty-cake test, where he had to pat his hands back and forth.
“You can review those independently on your own and make a judgment. Does it look to me like he is following instructions?
“Is he doing it as he was told? Is he stopping? Is he messing up? You can draw your own conclusions about how he performed.
“Our opinion was that in the performance of those field sobriety tests, he did not perform well. Now, the defense would have a different position, obviously.
“They would tell you that the nature of the tests, the instructions were extremely confusing. They’re not traditional.
“There are also questions in the reports that cops mention the fact that he had an unsteady gait or how he walked.
“Again, there would be innocent explanations for that from the defense as well, which is, again, relating back to his injuries.
“So I mention this to you to explain the difficulties we have in establishing that third element I talked to you about, which is impairment.
“Finally, we have to establish that he was impaired by a controlled substance. I already discussed with you the difficulties of that.”
Tiger Woods: ‘We don’t know exactly what was in bloodstream’
“On some occasions, you have a urinalysis,” added Bakkedahl. “As you all are aware, Mr Woods refused the urinalysis test. So we don’t know exactly what was in his bloodstream at the time he was driving.
“However, we have some other evidence and information that we can rely on. What was my case on both ‘under the influence’ and ‘impairment’?
“Here’s what it was. He said he took Vicodin. Vicodin is a controlled substance under federal and state law. It’s hydrocodone.
“We know from our investigation a couple of things that we did that I know you were aware of. We investigated, we obtained pharmacy records, which in the interest of protecting his privacy – this is not about embarrassing anybody – which have been sealed by the court, but they reflect a lawful prescription.
“We know how much was prescribed and how it was prescribed, and based upon that and the fact that when Mr Woods was arrested, he had two hydrocodone tablets in his pocket, we know he was taking it pursuant to the prescription, a fact that we need to take into consideration that we didn’t know initially.
“How did we prove that he’s under the influence in this case? We had to rely almost exclusively on the fact that he said he was.
“That’s pretty good fact. I’ll take it any day. Also, circumstantially, we can rely on the fact he had two hydrocodone pills in his pocket. That’s pretty strong evidence.
“Was he impaired? The impairment must be based solely and exclusively upon all of these factors I talked to you about already.
“Both toxicologists reviewing the information and evidence provided to them were of the opinion that there was insufficient proof – I don’t make that up, I accept what they apply to me – of his impairment.
“The defense expert indicated as a conclusion of his report – which is relatively brief, it didn’t require much, there’s no toxicology to do per se – that Mr Woods, as a result of his use of this particular type of substance, had built up what they call a pharmacological tolerance.
“The doctors indicated as a result of Mr Woods’ long-term use, he had built up a tolerance. If he has a tolerance, then it doesn’t impair him.
“And if he’s not impaired, I can’t prove DUI. And if I can’t prove DUI, I’d better come up with another plan.
“If Mr Woods took the prescription as prescribed, in all probability, based on the timeline that we subsequently would have developed, he would have no longer been impacted or significantly impacted by his medication.”
Tiger Woods plea change: ‘He’s not to drive’
“I liken plea negotiations, if you will, to mutually assured destruction,” suggested Bakkedahl. “Our plan was to refile the case as a reckless, because I think it is reckless and irresponsible to drive a vehicle while under the influence of anything to the extent that it may even be de minimis, to operate a vehicle under the influence and then engage in a traffic accident.
“Our ace in the hole was he refused to provide a urine sample, which is a crime in the state of Florida. Why is it mutually assured destruction? Because there are a number of things the defense could have done to eliminate some of the evidence that we might have been able to prove at trial.
“Had they done that, my whole case might be gone. Whereas, I feel confident that had we tried the case, we would have at a minimum been successful in trying him for failure to provide a urine sample, which is a secondary misdemeanor punishable by 60 days in jail.
“That’s the destruction that’s available on both ends. And so what happens in the criminal justice system every day of the week is we engage in these activities, these types of negotiations.
“Mr Woods admitted to his actions. He admitted to driving a reckless driving, a second offense. He was fined. His license is suspended for a period of five years.
“If I can send any message to Mr Woods, it’s simply this: of all the people in the world who should not get behind the wheel of a car, it’s the gentleman who is one of the most recognizable faces on the planet.
“Somebody will see him, whether it’s in Georgia or Nevada or New York or where have you. He’s not to drive a car.
“So I’m not here to defend what I did. I’m completely confident and comfortable with the resolution of this case.
“You know what? Today, I resolved a case involving a man who drives a golf ball for a living. Tomorrow, I’ll resolve a case in the same manner for a man who drives a nail for a living.”
Tiger Woods crash: What happened in DUI incident?
Police bodycam footage showed the 15-time major winner asking if he was being arrested and being handcuffed by police after hitting a truck and crashing his car in Florida.
Woods was charged with driving under the influence, property damage and refusal to submit to a lawful test last month and submitted a written plea of not guilty through his lawyers days later.
“I do believe your normal faculties are impaired, and you’re under an unknown substance,” Martin County Sheriff’s deputy Tatiana Levenar told Woods at the scene.
Tiger Woods bodycam footage: What happened in arrest?
Woods co-operated with police, kneeling to tell them that he had “looked down at my phone” and “all of a sudden, boom.”
When officers found pills in his pocket, Woods – who has had multiple surgeries on his back – told them they were painkillers.
The pills were hydrocodone, which is a prescription opioid used to treat pain. He denied drinking alcohol on the day of the crash but admitted he had taken “a few” medications and said he had nothing else on his person before being driven away.
A witness told an officer that Woods had “kept coming” as he approached in his vehicle before the crash.
“I was getting ready to turn in,” they said. “He was coming fast. I don’t think he was looking, that’s the thing.”
Tiger Woods crash: How golf icon crashed
Woods was able to leave his Land Rover by crawling out of the passenger side. Martin County Sheriff John Budensiek confirmed that neither Woods nor the driver of the other vehicle involved suffered injuries.
He had been attempting to overtake a pressure cleaning truck on a two-lane road near his home but clipped the trailer.
Officers reported that Woods appeared impaired. He passed a breathalyser test but declined to provide a urine sample.
After the crash, an officer wrote in the arrest affidavit that Woods was sweating heavily, had “extremely dilated” pupils and was moving in a “lethargic and slow” way.
Tiger Woods net worth
Since winning his first golf major in 1997, Woods has consistently been named among the athletes with the largest net worths in sporting history.
Financial experts Forbes currently put his net worth at $1.5 billion (around £1.29bn).
