Skellytown man indicted on marijuana possession charge
Alexander William Schmidling, 26, faces a charge of possessing more than 5 but no more than 50 pounds of marijuana after police say he ran from a traffic stop. The case remains undecided.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 9:42 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 4, 2026, 9:42 p.m. ETFirst report
Skellytown man indicted on marijuana possession charge after traffic stop
A Potter County grand jury has indicted Alexander William Schmidling, 26, of Skellytown, on a charge of possession of more than 5 pounds but no more than 50 pounds of marijuana, according to abc7amarillo.com. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; no trial has been held and no verdict has been reached.
The charge stems from an incident in which the government claims Schmidling ran from a traffic stop, leaving behind nearly 19 pounds of marijuana. Amarillo police and the Texas Department of Public Safety are listed as investigating agencies.
Schmidling has been charged but not tried; charges are allegations and he is presumed innocent.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 15 Sept 2026, 01:52current
First published.
- Version 15 Sept 2026, 01:42current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.