Four teams, including Seahawks, interested in Arnold

Published 11:20 am Friday, July 10, 2026

Former Detroit Lions defensive back Terrion Arnold will not have to wear an ankle monitor while on bond for an alleged kidnapping and robbery, a Florida judge ruled Friday morning, keeping open the possibility that Arnold could land with another NFL team as he awaits a trial.

Arnold, arrested on June 24 in connection with the case near Tampa, Fla., appeared in court virtually Friday morning. Christopher C. Sabella, the chief judge of the Florida 13th Circuit Court, previously ruled that Arnold would be allowed to travel for court appearances, meetings with his attorneys and work-related purposes — all without an ankle monitor — before his trial.

Sabella said on June 29 that forcing Arnold to wear an ankle monitor would interfere with football activities. Arnold was still on the Lions’ roster at the time of the bond ruling. But when the team released Arnold hours later, the state motioned to modify the conditions of his bond and revisit the ankle monitor.

“Given the fact that this change that the state is alleging is a change in no longer being employed, I don’t think that that rises to the level (of) a substantial change that will require a modification in the bond, so I am going to deny the state’s request to modify the bond,” Hillsborough County circuit judge Jeffrey Rich said in Friday’s virtual hearing.

Prosecutors had argued that Arnold’s release meant he was no longer in the unique position of being an NFL player.

“Now he no longer has that cloak, if you will,” prosecutor Kevin Riley said Friday. “So based off that, our motion should be granted that he has a GPS monitor on. He is no longer employed by the NFL.”

Arnold’s agent, Nicole Lynn, said in the hearing that four NFL teams showed interest in Arnold, all within the first 24 hours of his release: the Indianapolis Colts, Houston Texans, Seattle Seahawks and New York Jets. Lynn said that Arnold worked out for the Texans on Thursday and has another workout scheduled next week. She said an ankle monitor would hinder those opportunities.

Asked by the judge about the likelihood of the NFL placing Arnold on the commissioner’s exempt list, which essentially serves as paid leave as the NFL investigates a conduct issue, Lynn said, “I think there’s definitely a shot that they would step in and put him on the list. It wouldn’t mean that he was no longer employed.”

A league spokesman said the NFL is “closely monitoring all developments in the matter, which remains under review of the personal conduct policy” and declined further comment.

As part of his ruling Friday, Rich said the court must consider two factors when potentially modifying bond conditions: Will the defendant show up to court? And is he a danger to the community? Rich cited points Sabella previously made when the initial conditions were set. Among them: Arnold was under investigation for five months, engaged an attorney, never fled, had no issues during that span and turned himself in immediately when a warrant for his arrest was issued.

“I want it to be perfectly clear: All the other conditions that Judge Sabella put in place will remain the same,” Rich said. “I’m not changing anything, and I’m not adding anything — specifically the ankle monitor, the GPS monitor here today.”

Arnold, 23, faces four kidnapping charges and four robbery charges stemming from the February incident. Authorities said three people were beaten and robbed by armed men in an apartment because Arnold believed two of them had stolen from him a few days earlier. Arnold was not in the apartment during the incident, but Riley called Arnold the “general manager” of the scheme during the pre-trial detention hearing. Arnold’s attorneys have said there is no evidence tying him to the violence or robbery.

A trial date has not yet been set. If convicted, Arnold could be sentenced to life in prison.

“Our job is to do everything we can to protect victims while a case is pending,” State Attorney Suzy Lopez said in a statement. “After learning the defendant’s circumstances had changed, we believed additional bond conditions were appropriate and asked the court to require GPS monitoring. While our request was denied, our focus hasn’t changed. We will continue fighting for the victims in this case and working to hold the defendant accountable.”