Nelly‘s attorney is firing back against the police officer who arrested the rapper for drug possession this week and claims the cop was “overzealous” in his tactics.
Nelly’s Attorney Claims Police Officer Had No Probable Cause to Search Rapper
Following Nelly’s arrest for possession of ecstasy and no proof of insurance on Wednesday (Aug. 7), his attorney, Scott Rosenblum, issued a statement to XXL regarding what went down before the rapper was taken into custody. According to Rosenblum, Nelly, born Cornell Haynes Jr, was targeted by an “overzealous” cop who was “out of line.”
Rosenblum reveals that Nelly wasn’t charged with drug possession despite the arrest. Additionally, the no proof of insurance charge stemmed from a warrant issued last year and was connected to a 2018 incident.
Nelly won several jackpots at a casino yesterday and he was allegedly targeted by the officer who “felt compelled to needlessly run a check for warrants” instead of supervise the Midwest MC’s winnings, according to the statement.
The officer, who was with the Missouri State Highway Patrol, is accused of conducting a search of Nelly without probable cause. Rosenblum questions the validity of the pills found on the rhymer.
“This officer then conducted a search without probable cause where he claimed to have found alleged ‘ecstasy’ in Mr. Haynes’ personal property,” the statement reads.
After Nelly was taken into custody by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, he was transported to the Maryland Heights Police Department around 4:45 a.m. He has since been released following his arrest.
See the statement on Nelly’s arrest below.
“Mr. Haynes was not charged with drug possession. He was arrested for ‘No Proof of Insurance’ from 2018 on a warrant issued December 2023 that he received no notice.
Mr. Haynes was targeted by an overzealous, out of line officer. After winning several jackpots, at a venue where Mr. Haynes frequently visits and entertains at its amphitheater; instead of just supervising the transfer of Mr. Haynes’ winnings, this officer felt compelled to needlessly run a check for warrants. The officer informed Mr. Haynes a background check was mandated when a player won over a certain amount; Mr. Haynes knew this to be untrue as he had won several jackpots for similar or greater amounts including one just a week prior without incident or a background check. Once Mr. Haynes was informed of the warrant for a No Proof of lnsurance infraction, this officer felt compelled to handcuff Mr. Haynes behind his back and parade him through the casino in front of other patrons.
This officer then conducted a search without probable cause where he claimed to have found alleged ‘ecstasy’ in Mr. Haynes’ personal property.
Under similar circumstances, assuming there was an old warrant without any notice to the individual for no proof of insurance, any other citizen would have been told to address it and allowed to go on their way.
It is also important to note, that Mr. Haynes, as part of the requirements to travel internationally, is regularly asked to supply proof of no warrants. Including FBI checks. There were none.
I am 100% confident this case will go nowhere. And we will be asking for an inquiry into this officer’s conduct.”