Charles Snowden: Asleep at the Wheel and Texas DWI Law

Welcome to The Defense File, where we examine the criminal cases of public figures through the lens of Texas criminal law. Each entry looks at what happened in court, what the defense argued, and what a defendant would have faced, and how they might have been defended, if the same facts had occurred in Texas.

Charles Snowden took the long road to the NFL. A Silver Spring, Maryland native and a second-team All-ACC linebacker at Virginia, he went undrafted in 2021 and bounced between the Bears and Buccaneers before landing with the Las Vegas Raiders, where he started 18 games over the 2024 and 2025 seasons. In December 2024, police found him asleep behind the wheel of a running Jeep that had nearly gone over a retaining wall. His case ended in a plea that will reduce the charge to reckless driving, and it followed him to a three-game NFL suspension after he signed with the Dallas Cowboys. Because Snowden briefly played in Texas, and because his case turns on the issues Texas DWI lawyers argue every week, it is a natural fit for this series.

What Happened

At about 11:30 p.m. on December 9, 2024, Las Vegas police responded to a report of a suspicious vehicle in a southwest valley parking lot. According to the arrest report and body camera video, they found Snowden asleep in the driver’s seat of a Jeep Grand Cherokee with the engine running and the transmission in neutral. The SUV had nearly rolled off a four-foot retaining wall. Officers spent about ten minutes trying to wake him. When he came to, he was unsteady, smelled of alcohol, and could not stay awake or answer questions coherently. Asked where he was coming from, he said he was “trying to get home.” Asked what state he was in, he said “Florida.” He was arrested shortly after midnight and charged with misdemeanor DUI of alcohol and/or a controlled or prohibited substance. Two blood tests later measured his alcohol concentration at .18 and .19, more than twice Nevada’s .08 limit.

Represented by David Chesnoff and Richard Schonfeld, Snowden pleaded not guilty and continued to play for the Raiders. His bench trial was reset, and in January 2026 he entered a no contest plea. Under the deal, he was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and complete DUI school and a coroner’s class. If he completes those requirements, the DUI will be reduced to reckless driving.

The Raiders released him in May 2026. The Cowboys signed him on June 18, and on July 14 the NFL suspended him for the first three games of the 2026 season under the personal conduct policy. Dallas waived him with an injury designation in August and released him with an injury settlement. On September 29, 2026, he signed with the Washington Commanders’ practice squad, close to home.

How Texas Would See It

Was He Operating the Vehicle?

Texas DWI under Penal Code Section 49.04 requires that a person operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. The statute does not define “operate,” and no one saw Snowden drive. That makes operation the first battleground, just as it is in every Texas parked-car case. A shopping center parking lot is a public place under Texas law, so that element would not help him.

The governing case is Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a conviction where the driver was found asleep in a running car, reasoning that the jury could infer he drove there while intoxicated. In Murray, the absence of alcohol containers in the car worked against the driver, because it supported the inference that he drank somewhere else and drove. A related line of cases, including Kuciemba v. State, 310 S.W.3d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), lets a jury infer that a person found intoxicated behind the wheel after a single-vehicle accident was intoxicated when he drove. A Jeep perched on a retaining wall, engine running and the driver asleep, is a strong set of facts for the State under both lines of cases.

Two more rules make parked-car cases harder for drivers than most people expect. DWI is a strict liability offense under Section 49.11: the State does not have to prove the person intended to drive. And Texas has no “sleeping it off” defense. What the defense does have is the jury charge. Under Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 652 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), a trial court errs by defining “operating” for the jury, which may give the word any meaning acceptable in common usage. In a close case, that leaves room to argue that a sleeping man in a parked car was not operating anything.

The .15 Line: A Class A DWI

A first DWI in Texas is ordinarily a Class B misdemeanor. But under Section 49.04(d), it becomes a Class A misdemeanor if an analysis of the person’s blood, breath, or urine showed an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more. Snowden’s .18 and .19 would qualify. A Class A DWI carries up to a year in county jail and a fine of up to $4,000, with no minimum jail term. Under Transportation Code Section 709.001, a 0.15 conviction also carries the highest state traffic fine in the statute, $6,000, subject to an indigency waiver.

Timing matters differently for different parts of the case. To convict on the per se theory, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, the State has to connect the test to the time of driving, and when no one knows when the driving happened, that is hard to do; retrograde extrapolation is subject to the reliability limits in Mata v. State, 46 S.W.3d 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). But the 0.15 enhancement keys to the result “at the time the analysis was performed,” so an unknown time of driving does not defeat it. Ramjattansingh v. State, 548 S.W.3d 540, 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). The State could also proceed on the loss-of-faculties theory, and an officer’s account of a driver who thought he was in Florida is the kind of evidence it would use.

No Deferred Adjudication at .15

Here is the sharpest contrast with Snowden’s outcome. In Nevada, his DUI will become reckless driving if he completes the court’s requirements. In Texas, deferred adjudication for DWI is barred when the alcohol concentration was 0.15 or more at the time of the offense, under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42A.102(b)(1)(B). If he were convicted and placed on probation, Article 42A.408(c)(1) would require an ignition interlock device on his vehicle for at least half the supervision period. And a DWI conviction punished under Section 49.04(d) can never be sealed by an order of nondisclosure.

There is one opening. The deferred bar keys to the concentration “at the time of the offense,” while the Class A enhancement keys to the analysis, and Ramjattansingh treats those as different measuring points. No Texas court has decided whether a driver whose time of driving cannot be established can use that gap to argue he remains eligible for deferred adjudication. In a parked-car case like this one, it is an argument worth preserving.

The surest Texas route to an outcome like Snowden’s is a prosecutor’s agreement to reduce the charge itself, typically to obstruction of a highway or reckless driving, which is usually paired with deferred adjudication on the reduced charge. That is a negotiated result, not a right, and a test result near .19 with a vehicle on a retaining wall makes it a harder negotiation.

The Drug Question

Officers reportedly suspected drug use as well and asked for a methamphetamine screening, and the Nevada charge was written to cover alcohol and/or a controlled substance. No drug result has been publicly reported. In Texas, “intoxicated” includes impairment from alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or any combination, so the State can charge a combined theory. In practice, that means the defense has to examine every lab report in the file, not just the alcohol number.

The License

A Texas driver who gives a blood specimen showing 0.08 or more also faces an administrative license suspension, 90 days on a first contact. The driver has only 15 days from notice to request a hearing to contest it, and that deadline is often missed in the first weeks after an arrest, while attention is on the criminal case.

The Real Throughline: The Number and the Narrative

Snowden’s case had two problems a defense lawyer cannot make disappear: a test result above .15 and video of a driver who did not know what state he was in. What the defense could challenge was the gap between the evidence and the elements, chiefly whether anyone could prove when or how he drove. In Nevada, that leverage produced a path to a reckless driving outcome. In Texas, the same leverage would run into a statute that takes deferred adjudication off the table at .15, which is why the Texas fight in a case like this so often centers on operation and on whether the State will agree to reduce the charge.

How the Defense Plays It

• Attack operation and timing. No one saw him drive. The State must prove when he operated the vehicle and that he was intoxicated then.
• Separate the per se theory from the enhancement. The 0.08 theory depends on time of driving; the 0.15 enhancement depends on the analysis. Each has different weaknesses.
• Scrutinize the blood evidence. Two results, .18 and .19, invite questions about collection times, the lab’s uncertainty budget, chain of custody, and the run records.
• Preserve the jury charge issue. Object to any instruction defining “operating.” The jury is entitled to apply its own common understanding.
• Request the license hearing within 15 days. The administrative hearing preserves driving privileges and gives the defense an early look at the officer’s testimony.
• Negotiate with the 0.15 rules in mind. Because deferred adjudication is unavailable on a 0.15 DWI, a reduction to a different offense is often the only route to avoiding a permanent DWI conviction.

What This Case Illustrates

Charles Snowden’s case shows how two states can treat the same night very differently. Nevada offered a first-time offender a path from DUI to reckless driving. Texas, with a .18 or .19 result, would make that path depend entirely on the prosecutor, and would otherwise mean a Class A conviction, an interlock, and a record that can never be sealed. For an athlete or anyone else, the first decisions after a high-BAC arrest, starting with that 15-day license deadline, shape everything that follows.

Related Reading

• What is DWI 0.15 and why does the higher BAC matter?
• DWI defense in Texas
• Ben Cleveland’s 0.178 DUI: Why That Number Matters in Georgia and in Texas
• Melvin Gordon: A DUI Won on the Stop

Sources

• CBS Sports, Raiders’ Charles Snowden thought he was in Florida during recent DUI arrest in Las Vegas (Jan. 2025).
• Las Vegas Review-Journal, Raiders’ Charles Snowden gets suspended sentence in DUI case after no contest plea (Jan. 2026).
• Yahoo Sports, Cowboys DE Charles Snowden suspended for first 3 games following plea deal on DUI charge (July 14, 2026).
• Dallas Cowboys, Charles Snowden suspended by NFL for first 3 games of 2026 season (July 14, 2026).
• Pro Football Rumors, Raiders release DE Charles Snowden (May 2026).
• Washington Commanders, Commanders sign OLB Charles Snowden to practice squad (Sept. 29, 2026).
• Murray v. State, 457 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
• Texas Penal Code Section 49.04 (Driving While Intoxicated) and Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42A.102.

Talk to Deandra Grant Law. Deandra Grant Law defends DWI and criminal cases across North and Central Texas from offices in Dallas, Fort Worth, Allen, Denton, Rockwall, and Waco. If you or someone you know has been arrested for DWI, call (214) 225-7117 for a free, confidential consultation. Remember that the deadline to request a license hearing is only 15 days.

The Defense File is an educational series. It is not legal advice, and it is not a comment on the guilt or innocence of any person. Charges described here are allegations unless a conviction is noted.