Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
Arrested and assaulted aren't the same thing for most people.
We either have Constitutional protections.....or we don't.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
I'm not a legal scholar so don't roast me, but if a cop, who is presumably a representative/enforcer of the law, (I know I know) says do it, and you resist, and are arrested, is it assault? I thought we've been told to comply and let the lawyers hash it out in court? Also, does hospital policy supercede the law, or is the nurse standing on law, such as hippa or ?? Just trying to understand.
_______________________________________________________ An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack
I couldn't quote you the exact regulations about blood draws on unconscious patients, that's not my area, but HIPAA is an extremely huge deal with hospitals since the penalties are real and drastic. We go to what I would call almost extreme lengths to protect patient information and privacy. But beyond any legal requirement a lot of nurses and AFAIK a lot of doctors will also fight very hard to protect their patients because that's what they do.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
All too common. It come from giving men power without education and screening men to hire who don't have high moral fiber. Not all. Probably not even most. But those that are of low morals are usually NOT cleaned out by those that are not corrupt outright. The good-ol-boy network seems to take some president over the rule of law. Again, not in every department, but in enough of them that it's the norm, not the exception
Ever think about "Internal Affairs" departments within Sheriff's or Police departments. Why is there such a thing? The tax payers OWN the department. Not the cops. The law enforcement industry is owned 100% by the tax payers. The cops exist for the benefit of the people. The people NEVER|R exist for the benefit of the cops. But the average cop is tole he's the boss and that he has to MAKE the people obey him and he believe it.
Some rather noteworthy sheriffs see this clearly and do things to correct it. Clark (until today), Arpaio, Mack and several from the Constitutional Sheriff's association are among them. But they are outnumbered by the good-ol-boys about 1000 t 1
That cop in the article probably thinks he's doing the right thing and if there is some moral reason he needs that blood analysis he is doing what he thinks he must to put a bad guy away, but he's not trained the right way. A doctor must go through about 12 years of schooling and do an internship before he or she is allowed to make any decisions that can permanently effect the life of another person. But a cop need to go through a few months (sometimes weeks) of "training" in which time he is taught almost NO LAW at all. Only "case law" and policy, and never are they required to do even a 6 month study of the US Constitution or the history of events that led to it's writing and adoption. The most important to him is going to be the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
Looking online, Utah doesn't require a warrant to draw blood. You give implied consent when you get your driver's license.
Doesn't the person have to be placed under arrest for IC to take affect?
They can't just go around and draw blood from any "driver" they wish.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
. In Thursday’s news conference, Wubbels’s attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under “implied consent,” according to the Tribune. But Porter said “implied consent” law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels’s arrest unlawful.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
The Supreme court ruled 5-4 last year that an involuntary blood test requires a warrant, statist workarounds of implied consent by driving at all be damned.
The title of the article is: "Video Shows Utah Nurse Being Assaulted By Police" but there is no video. OK the second link from the OP does. She obviously was trying to be fair by allowing the cop to hear what her supervisor was confirming.
I'm sure the nurse knew what she was talking about and also sought confirmation from hospital administration via phone. It also appears other cops present were not comfortable with the arresting officers actions. To bad they had no balls to intercede, but that is totally typical thin blue line behavior.
I would guess she will own the cop and part of the city should she choose to press charges. I hope she does.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
The Supreme court ruled 5-4 last year that an involuntary blood test requires a warrant, statist workarounds of implied consent by driving at all be damned.
the second article also says in Utah implied consent was overturned a decade ago.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
. In Thursday’s news conference, Wubbels’s attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under “implied consent,” according to the Tribune. But Porter said “implied consent” law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels’s arrest unlawful.
Show me in the Supreme Court's decision where is mentions UNCONSCIOUS individuals. I'll show you cases, since the decision, where blood drawn was drawn, and upheld, from unconscious people.
Oliver Benton Hyde was found unconscious in his vehicle after being involved in a single-vehicle collision. Police suspected Hyde of DUI, and after being transported to a hospital, a sample of his blood was taken to establish his blood-alcohol concentration. Hyde sought to suppress the blood test, because it was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that though breath tests were constitutionally permissible without a warrant, blood tests were more intrusive, and thus typically required a warrant. It also ruled that a driver couldn’t be criminally penalized for refusing a warrantless blood test.
But Birchfield “endorsed the use of implied consent laws like Colorado’s” that only impose civil, as opposed to criminal, penalties on those who refuse to comply, the Colorado Supreme Court said.
“By driving in Colorado, Hyde consented to the terms of the Expressed Consent Statute, including its requirement that he submit to blood-alcohol testing under the circumstances present here,” the court said. “Hyde’s statutory consent satisfied the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement,” it said.
