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.
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
Correct, from what I can gather, Implied Consent does NOT apply to CONSCIOUS people. A warrant is needed in Utah to draw blood if CONSCIOUS.
A warrant ISN'T needed to draw blood if UNCONSCIOUS, is what I gather.
Oh yeah, that is a bad arrest. That is why the nurse was released with out any charges.
The detective stated that the Lieutenant told him via telephone to arrest the nurse. The Lieutenant probably trusted the detective and will get burned. The officers that showed up and assisted in the arrest will get burned. The detective will get "training" and assigned somewhere with less public contact.
From what was seen in the video the nurse was being more than reasonable. I do not know the detective lost his cool.
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.
Correct, from what I can gather, Implied Consent does NOT apply to CONSCIOUS people. A warrant is needed in Utah to draw blood if CONSCIOUS.
A warrant ISN'T needed to draw blood if UNCONSCIOUS, is what I gather.
That's even worse.
What if consent is a right taken away from anyone that's unconscious?
The dumb cop made a big mistake by not getting a warrant. That drawn blood evidence would be thrown out of court. The smart nurse was trying to educate the dumb cop about the law, which the dumb cop was sworn to uphold, but the dumb cop was dull of hearing. The smart nurse had every right to follow the hospital policy and protect her patient. Like we used to say in the Marines . . . "There's always that 10%!"
. 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.
. 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.
Correct, from what I can gather, Implied Consent does NOT apply to CONSCIOUS people. A warrant is needed in Utah to draw blood if CONSCIOUS.
A warrant ISN'T needed to draw blood if UNCONSCIOUS, is what I gather.
I don't think that question has been addressed by the courts yet. While the law doesn't specifically deny it, it also doesn't specifically authorize it.
For whatever reason, that cop ignored one of the basic rules of police work, i.e., time is on the cop's side. He also didn't take time to think this through. Once the guy is in custody, he no longer has (or should have!) the opportunity to consume any more intoxicant(s). Given that, the officer could (I say should) have posted another officer to stay with the suspect, and the arresting officer should have gone and applied for a search warrant for the blood.
I have never seen an unconscious person brought into an E.R. that did not have blood drawn by the E.R. staff for medical reasons, i.e., find out what is in the blood stream BEFORE they attempt to treat them. Once that blood is drawn, the time it was drawn is part of the record keeping. The suspect's blood alcohol level is "frozen in time" at that point and there are legally and medically accepted formulas for calculating the blood level at the time of arrest. There is no exigent circumstance that require a warrantless seizure.
As to the arrest of the nurse, IMHO, that was uncalled for. As the article noted, charges were dropped. I would expect a Title 1983 action to follow (Violation of Civil Rights) and the City will have to pay. Hopefully, the officer will too. The hospital should join in as co-plaintiff as they, too, suffered damages by the nurse's arrest. They lost a vital member of the E.R staff and would have to call in someone else to replace her. In the meantime, the E.R. is operating short-staffed.
As to the other officers not stepping in, remember that a fish rots from the head down. If a department has a culture that doesn't allow other officers to step in, it is the citizen's right and responsibility to hold the administrators accountable. As noted by another poster, the PD belongs to the citizens and THEY are the ones who get to set policy based on the community's needs. It takes work by the citizenry to get this accomplished, but the results are much better for the community than letting the courts set policy, or God forbid, the Attorney General step in with a Consent Decree. Those only serve the attorneys and the bad guys.
And one long lasting condition of this incident will be the distrust of and subtle hostility towards any other officer who comes into the E.R. on business. It's human nature. There a few folks that most cops treat like royalty (or should), those are Dispatchers, Medics, and E.R. personnel. All of them can have a very significant effect on a cop's life. This guy scheit in his own and every other cop in that department's cup.
Correct, from what I can gather, Implied Consent does NOT apply to CONSCIOUS people. A warrant is needed in Utah to draw blood if CONSCIOUS.
A warrant ISN'T needed to draw blood if UNCONSCIOUS, is what I gather.
I don't think that question has been addressed by the courts yet. While the law doesn't specifically deny it, it also doesn't specifically authorize it.
For whatever reason, that cop ignored one of the basic rules of police work, i.e., time is on the cop's side. He also didn't take time to think this through. Once the guy is in custody, he no longer has (or should have!) the opportunity to consume any more intoxicant(s). Given that, the officer could (I say should) have posted another officer to stay with the suspect, and the arresting officer should have gone and applied for a search warrant for the blood.
I have never seen an unconscious person brought into an E.R. that did not have blood drawn by the E.R. staff for medical reasons, i.e., find out what is in the blood stream BEFORE they attempt to treat them. Once that blood is drawn, the time it was drawn is part of the record keeping. The suspect's blood alcohol level is "frozen in time" at that point and there are legally and medically accepted formulas for calculating the blood level at the time of arrest. There is no exigent circumstance that require a warrantless seizure.
As to the arrest of the nurse, IMHO, that was uncalled for. As the article noted, charges were dropped. I would expect a Title 1983 action to follow (Violation of Civil Rights) and the City will have to pay. Hopefully, the officer will too. The hospital should join in as co-plaintiff as they, too, suffered damages by the nurse's arrest. They lost a vital member of the E.R staff and would have to call in someone else to replace her. In the meantime, the E.R. is operating short-staffed.
As to the other officers not stepping in, remember that a fish rots from the head down. If a department has a culture that doesn't allow other officers to step in, it is the citizen's right and responsibility to hold the administrators accountable. As noted by another poster, the PD belongs to the citizens and THEY are the ones who get to set policy based on the community's needs. It takes work by the citizenry to get this accomplished, but the results are much better for the community than letting the courts set policy, or God forbid, the Attorney General step in with a Consent Decree. Those only serve the attorneys and the bad guys.
And one long lasting condition of this incident will be the distrust of and subtle hostility towards any other officer who comes into the E.R. on business. It's human nature. There a few folks that most cops treat like royalty (or should), those are Dispatchers, Medics, and E.R. personnel. All of them can have a very significant effect on a cop's life. This guy scheit in his own and every other cop in that department's cup.
Just my $0.02
Ed
Agreed completely.
Was the cop within the letter of the law? Maybe and quite possibly YES. Was it the best way to go about it? ABSOLUTELY not.
I have never seen an unconscious person brought into an E.R. that did not have blood drawn by the E.R. staff for medical reasons, i.e., find out what is in the blood stream BEFORE they attempt to treat them. Once that blood is drawn, the time it was drawn is part of the record keeping. The suspect's blood alcohol level is "frozen in time" at that point and there are legally and medically accepted formulas for calculating the blood level at the time of arrest. There is no exigent circumstance that require a warrantless seizure.
In michigan the hospital draw isn't a "legal" etoh, can't be used as evidence. A second draw (with warrant if patient refuses) is done and the chain of custody is maintained.
. 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.
Bad arrest. The Nurse explained to the Detective all the reasons why she could not let him have the blood and what he needed to do to legally get it. Once the blood is out of the body the BAC is not going to change sitting in a tube. There was an agreement between the PD and the Hospital concerning these how these matters were to be handles and she showed it to the Detective. He copped the attitude of "How Dare this Nurse Question Me". She was legally doing her job and he wasn't. When the higher ranking officer showed up it was obvious he had no idea as to what actually transpired. The Nurse didn't say No, No, No. She made it clear as to the why. The man whose blood they were trying to draw was the Victim. An innocent Victim. The officers had no more right to his blood as they had to his fingerprints.
The Nurse is showing a lot of constraint in the matter. Had it happened to me I would have been suing. You need to know the law if you are going to enforce it. It is obvious to me that none of the officers involved in her actual arrest did. It is Officers like these that give the good guys a bad reputation. My first thought is that I would not want to be him if I got shot and had to go to that ER. But, in actuality it would not matter. In life and death situations you will put aside your differences. Been there and done that.
In michigan the hospital draw isn't a "legal" etoh, can't be used as evidence. A second draw (with warrant if patient refuses) is done and the chain of posession is maintained.
Understood. Too bad, but in that case, the same backwards analysis can be done on the legal draw. Sounds like the Defense Bar was successful in their efforts to further obstruct the evidence gathering.
In michigan the hospital draw isn't a "legal" etoh, can't be used as evidence. A second draw (with warrant if patient refuses) is done and the chain of posession is maintained.
I don't think it was always that way in MI? I recall more than a few hospital lab results being used in the past in certain circumstances, but that was decades ago.
The cop isn't used to being told "NO", and he doesn't have the self control to handle that frustration. He's a bully by nature and relishes his power over the public. This particular officer has no business dealing with the public in a position of authority.
I'll bet dollars to dogturds he really wanted to beat the schidt out of the defiant nurse.
People haven't owned their own bodies in America since at *least* alcohol prohibition. That eventually got overturned. But the concept of the government dictating what people can do with their bodies is alive and well.
In fact, the government won't even allow you to use your body to express certain ideas these days. If it goes against the government's agenda, it's labeled "hate speech" and is outlawed.
In michigan the hospital draw isn't a "legal" etoh, can't be used as evidence. A second draw (with warrant if patient refuses) is done and the chain of posession is maintained.
I don't think it was always that way in MI? I recall more than a few hospital lab results being used in the past in certain circumstances, but that was decades ago.
Wife worked as a phlebotomist for twenty years, changed jobs about ten years ago. She drew a few legal etoh draws. Back then law enforcement had to provide the kits which they carried in their cruisers. Kits were sent to the MSP crime lab for testing.
In michigan the hospital draw isn't a "legal" etoh, can't be used as evidence. A second draw (with warrant if patient refuses) is done and the chain of posession is maintained.
I don't think it was always that way in MI? I recall more than a few hospital lab results being used in the past in certain circumstances, but that was decades ago.
Wife worked as a phlebotomist for twenty years, changed jobs about ten years ago. She drew a few legal etoh draws. Back then law enforcement had to provide the kits which they carried in their cruisers. Kits were sent to the MSP crime lab for testing.
Now that you mention it, I recall the hospital draws being used to establish PC for the warrant on the kit draw if you couldn't get informed consent.
I think the issue then was that the officer was or was not privy to the hospital lab results in order to establish PC.
In michigan the hospital draw isn't a "legal" etoh, can't be used as evidence. A second draw (with warrant if patient refuses) is done and the chain of posession is maintained.
Understood. Too bad, but in that case, the same backwards analysis can be done on the legal draw. Sounds like the Defense Bar was successful in their efforts to further obstruct the evidence gathering.
Ed
Wow, so expecting the police to abide by the fourth amendment of the constitution is obstructing justice?
Just imagine how much money would be saved, how many criminal cases wouldn't be thrown out and how many civil rights cases wouldn't be filed if cops simply got a warrant every time one was needed? It's the gung ho and lazy cops that are the problem, not the ER staff and not the defense lawyers.
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet or not (didn't see where it has been, but I may have missed it), but the detective was trying to get a blood sample from the driver who was the VICTIM of the criminal driver, and not the driver who caused the accident.
Consequently, there was no probable cause that the victim of the crash had caused the crash or had committed any criminal violation. Hence, the officer would have been unable to obtain a warrant to collect the blood sample from the victim driver. Implied consent would not have been applicable, either, for the same reason. Implied consent is aimed at drivers who are suspected of committing the act of driving while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, not at accident victims who are not suspected of wrong-doing
My assumption is that the officer was attempting to obtain blood evidence which would prove the victim drivers was NOT under the influence at the time of the crash in order to deflect any future defense offered by the suspect driver that the victim caused the collision. From the tone of the article, it appears the victim driver was severely burned in the crash and may not survive. If that is the case, the prosecution would have no way to refute a claim the victim driver may have been intoxicated absent a blood sample.
The SCOTUS has decided a blood draw from an unconscious driver, absent a warrant or other recognized exigency, is unconstitutional and cannot be used as evidence against the accused in court. However, I'm not aware of any case law in which the police have obtained a warrantless (and without consent) blood sample from a crime victim in an effort to show the victim was not intoxicated, which has subsequently been deemed unconstitutional.
Not condoning the officers behavior in any way, but the facts surrounding this instance may not be as cut-and-dry as some assume...
As I understand it in this case, the suspect driver hit the victim head-on, and the cop was more likely trying to obtain evidence from the victim for the possible vehicular homicide case which may result. I have no idea if the suspect driver was drunk or not, so I doubt this is just about padding DUI stats.
Again, I'm not condoning the cops behavior. He was wrong and should have known he was wrong. Period.
Just pointing out there have been some incorrect assumptions in this discussion regarding warrants and implied consent.
As I understand it in this case, the drunk driver hit the victim head-on, and the cop was more likely trying to obtain evidence from the victim for the possible vehicular homicide case which may result.
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet or not (didn't see where it has been, but I may have missed it), but the detective was trying to get a blood sample from the driver who was the VICTIM of the criminal driver, and not the driver who caused the accident.
Consequently, there was no probable cause that the victim of the crash had caused the crash or had committed any criminal violation. Hence, the officer would have been unable to obtain a warrant to collect the blood sample from the victim driver. Implied consent would not have been applicable, either, for the same reason. Implied consent is aimed at drivers who are suspected of committing the act of driving while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, not at accident victims who are not suspected of wrong-doing
My assumption is that the officer was attempting to obtain blood evidence which would prove the victim drivers was NOT under the influence at the time of the crash in order to deflect any future defense offered by the suspect driver that the victim caused the collision. From the tone of the article, it appears the victim driver was severely burned in the crash and may not survive. If that is the case, the prosecution would have no way to refute a claim the victim driver may have been intoxicated absent a blood sample.
The SCOTUS has decided a blood draw from an unconscious driver, absent a warrant or other recognized exigency, is unconstitutional and cannot be used as evidence against the accused in court. However, I'm not aware of any case law in which the police have obtained a warrantless (and without consent) blood sample from a crime victim in an effort to show the victim was not intoxicated, which has subsequently been deemed unconstitutional.
Not condoning the officers behavior in any way, but the facts surrounding this instance may not be as cut-and-dry as some assume...
Chris
Unless the driver who caused the accident was known by, or a friend of, the detective who wanted to get evidence from the victim that could mitigate the other drivers responsibility. That could also explain his aberrant behavior.
The cop was wrong but arguing with him about is wrong too. That rarely ends well, on scene. I suspect he will be held accountable for his decisions and the nurse will be compensated accordingly. People who make decisions like that officer are a liability for any department and reflect badly on all. Due to recent Supreme Court decisions, we are currently getting search warrants on blood draws even with consent. And yes, that is a huge drain on resources and time.
The cop was wrong but arguing with him about is wrong too. That rarely ends well, on scene. I suspect he will be held accountable for his decisions and the nurse will be compensated accordingly. People who make decisions like that officer are a liability for any department and reflect badly on all. Due to recent Supreme Court decisions, we are currently getting search warrants on blood draws even with consent. And yes, that is a huge drain on resources and time.
What choice did she have? She is under federal rules and requirements that she and her supervisors believed did not allow a draw without a warrant under the circumstances. I doubt they decline LEO without a very solid reason to do so.
She was also very transparent with the cop and allowed him to listen in on the speaker setting on her phone as to what her supervisor was telling her to do in the circumstance. Why didn't he go arrest the supervisor?
Had Barney went and got his warrant, he could have had his draw, but he preferred to exert his "power" and ruin his career, damage relationships at the hospital, and likely enrich the nurse and hospital. All easily avoidable.
The cop was wrong but arguing with him about is wrong too. That rarely ends well, on scene. I suspect he will be held accountable for his decisions and the nurse will be compensated accordingly. People who make decisions like that officer are a liability for any department and reflect badly on all. Due to recent Supreme Court decisions, we are currently getting search warrants on blood draws even with consent. And yes, that is a huge drain on resources and time.
You made a good post, IMO.
Still, LEO convenience should never trump citizens' constitutional protections. I feel you agree and were just stating fact regarding the resource drain.
In michigan the hospital draw isn't a "legal" etoh, can't be used as evidence. A second draw (with warrant if patient refuses) is done and the chain of posession is maintained.
I don't think it was always that way in MI? I recall more than a few hospital lab results being used in the past in certain circumstances, but that was decades ago.
Unless something has changed in the nine months since I retired from the District Court bench, after twenty years, following a few years as a Prosecutor and a few years before that as a LEO, blood drawn for medical purposes in Michigan is admissable in evidence in a criminal prosection. Prosecutor can simply subpoena the ETOH results.
The police were chasing the perp who hit the victim. Police may not have been following protocols when chasing the perpetrator and now looking for evidence to obfuscate their culpability. No other reason for collecting a blood sample from the victim that I can think of. It is the legal equivalent of "look ! Squirrel !".
Not really relevant to the issue at hand, but I've never written a nurse a ticket. I've always told them that I might need their help someday and I don't want them wondering if I was the cop that wrote them that ticket. By the way...slow down. We try to maintain a good relationship with the ER staff for a number of reasons and it makes everything easier. I'm sure the guys working with him aren't proud of his behavior.
Didn't say it was fake news, and certainly didn't say it was entirely fake news. Reading comprehension surely is not one of your strengths
Anyone who disagrees with steelhead the almighty, can't read can't write blaa blaa blaa or what ever stupid spelling cop bs he wants to throw at them. Get a life you [bleep]ñ loser.
She's 100% correct, and should be commended. When the courts ruled that the police had authority to force blood from those they arrest, it was a violation of the Constitution, and basic human rights, on many levels. It involves an act of violence against someone that is presumed innocent, for one. It's also forcing someone to do what amounts to testifying against themselves.
Arrested and assaulted aren't the same thing for most people.
If it is an unlawful arrest they are the same by definition.
Exactly. If the unwanted contact wasn't supported by law, then it's an assault. The law is clear, but is generally not applied to the police, and that's wrong. The fact that it's not, is an act of tyranny.
As I understand it in this case, the suspect driver hit the victim head-on, and the cop was more likely trying to obtain evidence from the victim for the possible vehicular homicide case which may result.
It is my understanding the fleeing person involved in the car chase who struck the truck driven by the unconscious patient died in the collision. That being so, what possible homicide case would apply?
Quote
The police were chasing the perp who hit the victim. Police may not have been following protocols when chasing the perpetrator and now looking for evidence to obfuscate their culpability. No other reason for collecting a blood sample from the victim that I can think of.
This bears investigating. SOMETHING had sure rattled that Cop's cage when this went down, whether connected to this incident or not I dunno.
Damn fortunate for that Cop that the nurse has been so forgiving about this so far, pretty sure he failed the "Should I be a Cop?" test on that go round.
SALT LAKE COUNTY, Utah — As the story of a Utah nurse arrested after upholding a policy on drawing blood from patients gains nationwide attention, the Salt Lake County District Attorney is requesting a criminal investigation into the matter.
Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski announced that as a result of the criminal investigation, the officer involved in the incident will be placed on full administrative leave.
“This is an ever evolving situation, and we will do what is necessary to fully investigate the issue, uphold the integrity of the Salt Lake City Police Department, and strengthen the trust with our community,” said Chief Mike Brown
Biskupski said: “We cannot allow an incident like this divide our community or taint the good work of SLCPD. When I learned of this unacceptable incident last night, I was outraged and will ensure it is fully and independently investigated so our community can heal.”
Alex Wubbels was arrested July 26 after she refused an officer’s demand to allow a blood draw on a semi truck driver critically injured in a crash when a suspect fleeing from police hit him head-on.
As Wubbels explained the policy and her supervisor backed her up via speaker phone, the officer suddenly declared “we’re done here” and arrested Wubbels. Video of the nurse screaming as she is dragged out the hospital and arrested went viral after it was released at a press conference Thursday.
Friday, DA Sim Gill stated he is requesting a criminal investigation after receiving numerous complaints about the issue.
“In fairness to all those involved I have requested a criminal investigation into the incident so that the District Attorneys office could screen the matter after gathering all the facts,” Gill stated. “Our office had not received any materials on the matter thus far and in the interest of justice and given the prima facie evidence a criminal investigation is warranted.”
Gill said that both Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Chief of Police Mike Brown have agreed such an investigation is appropriate.
“I thank them for their commitment to transparency and institutional accountability,” Gill states. “Injustice against one is an injustice against all. Everyone deserves a fair process and institutional accountability is our collective responsibility.”
Can someone explain how this is not an illegal search and siezure and an assault during the commission of that unlawful act?
If that is the case, and it certainly looks like it to me, then can someone explain why the other sworn officers present did not act to at the very least stop the assault and as would happen in any other situaton, arrest the assaulting officer?
Can someone explain how this is not an illegal search and siezure and an assault during the commission of that unlawful act?
If that is the case, and it certainly looks like it to me, then can someone explain why the other sworn officers present did not act to at the very least stop the assault and as would happen in any other situaton, arrest the assaulting officer?
I've literally been asking this very question here for a decade or more. I've yet to get an answer.
[quote=double tap]As I understand it in this case, the suspect driver hit the victim head-on, and the cop was more likely trying to obtain evidence from the victim for the possible vehicular homicide case which may result.
It is my understanding the fleeing person involved in the car chase who struck the truck driven by the unconscious patient died in the collision. That being so, what possible homicide case would apply?
Thanks for clarifying that, it changes the dynamic considerably!. I'd not seen that the suspect driver died, but just looked at another article that confirmed he was killed in the crash, so you're correct. With that tidbit of information, I'm perplexed as to the urgency to obtain blood from the victim driver. One of my co-workers suggested it may have had something to do with the fact the victim driver was driving a semi and would have had a CDL, which carries stricter BAC limits while driving under the CDL, but that theory seems pretty weak to me because there was still no probable cause and Utah's implied consent law had been nullified.
Seems most likely at this point it was a case of refusing to take "No" for an answer, but the detective had a duty to know he had no legal basis for forcing a blood draw from an unconscious patient, and he will now pay the piper...
The Cop is in big trouble, A lot of witnesses on this one.
If she so desires she'll have a good payday.
While a payday for the nurse might sound good it just punishes the taxpayer , better that the cop be convicted of felony kidnapping & given prison time.
The Cop is in big trouble, A lot of witnesses on this one.
If she so desires she'll have a good payday.
While a payday for the nurse might sound good it just punishes the taxpayer , better that the cop be convicted of felony kidnapping & given prison time.
My guess is the Police were solely focused on the driver of the truck as he was hit by a driver being chased by police.....would help them against a lawsuit if they could show that the truck driver was impaired.
It is my understanding the fleeing person involved in the car chase who struck the truck driven by the unconscious patient died in the collision. That being so, what possible homicide case would apply?
Because in this country, if you blow over while operating a motor vehicle you are FUGKED with a capital K.
Doesn't matter if you did everything right or wrong.
So, who's with me for abolishing this type of schit?
My guess is the Police were solely focused on the driver of the truck as he was hit by a driver being chased by police.....would help them against a lawsuit if they could show that the truck driver was impaired.
My guess is that if you are drunk and driving and involved in an accident that includes a death, you could have some serious charges hung on your ass.
The police were chasing the perp who hit the victim. Police may not have been following protocols when chasing the perpetrator and now looking for evidence to obfuscate their culpability. No other reason for collecting a blood sample from the victim that I can think of. It is the legal equivalent of "look ! Squirrel !".
I doubt it's squirrel. Here is what I understand from the news:
1. The police were chasing a suspect, who swerved out of his lane and hit a truck. 2. The driver of the truck was not accused of anything and there was no probable cause of a crime having been commited by that driver. 3. It has been ruled uncostitutional to collect blood without a warrant and without probable cause, no warrant. 3. The officer's supervisor told him to obtain blood from the truck driver and arrest anyone who tried to stop him.
It appears to me an abuse of authority of the kind the constitution was created to protect us from. I suspect it was the police department trying to find something in the blood of a private citizen, accused of nothing, to relieve them from liability for the serious accident they probably contributed to. It's ashamed that some people in this country are now so accepting of this kind of thing. An example of a modern version of the type of abuse of power that led to the Revolutinary War.
The police were chasing the perp who hit the victim. Police may not have been following protocols when chasing the perpetrator and now looking for evidence to obfuscate their culpability. No other reason for collecting a blood sample from the victim that I can think of. It is the legal equivalent of "look ! Squirrel !".
I doubt it's squirrel. Here is what I understand from the news:
1. The police were chasing a suspect, who swerved out of his lane and hit a truck. 2. The driver of the truck was not accused of anything and there was no probable cause of a crime having been commited by that driver. 3. It has been ruled uncostitutional to collect blood without a warrant and without probable cause, no warrant. 3. The officer's supervisor told him to obtain blood from the truck driver and arrest anyone who tried to stop him.
It appears to me an abuse of authority of the kind the constitution was created to protect us from. I suspect it was the police department trying to find something in the blood of a private citizen, accused of nothing, to relieve them from liability for the serious accident they probably contributed to. It's ashamed that some people in this country are now so accepting of this kind of thing. An example of a modern version of the type of abuse of power that led to the Revolutinary War.
Didn't say it was fake news, and certainly didn't say it was entirely fake news. Reading comprehension surely is not one of your strengths
Anyone who disagrees with steelhead the almighty, can't read can't write blaa blaa blaa or what ever stupid spelling cop bs he wants to throw at them. Get a life you [bleep]ñ loser.
. 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.
Its a corrupt 'protect and serve your own interests' culture that will never change. A culture of police intimidating other police and citizens alike...theres a little or a lot of swine in all of them.
Correct, from what I can gather, Implied Consent does NOT apply to CONSCIOUS people. A warrant is needed in Utah to draw blood if CONSCIOUS.
A warrant ISN'T needed to draw blood if UNCONSCIOUS, is what I gather.
I don't think that question has been addressed by the courts yet. While the law doesn't specifically deny it, it also doesn't specifically authorize it.
For whatever reason, that cop ignored one of the basic rules of police work, i.e., time is on the cop's side. He also didn't take time to think this through. Once the guy is in custody, he no longer has (or should have!) the opportunity to consume any more intoxicant(s). Given that, the officer could (I say should) have posted another officer to stay with the suspect, and the arresting officer should have gone and applied for a search warrant for the blood.
I have never seen an unconscious person brought into an E.R. that did not have blood drawn by the E.R. staff for medical reasons, i.e., find out what is in the blood stream BEFORE they attempt to treat them. Once that blood is drawn, the time it was drawn is part of the record keeping. The suspect's blood alcohol level is "frozen in time" at that point and there are legally and medically accepted formulas for calculating the blood level at the time of arrest. There is no exigent circumstance that require a warrantless seizure.
As to the arrest of the nurse, IMHO, that was uncalled for. As the article noted, charges were dropped. I would expect a Title 1983 action to follow (Violation of Civil Rights) and the City will have to pay. Hopefully, the officer will too. The hospital should join in as co-plaintiff as they, too, suffered damages by the nurse's arrest. They lost a vital member of the E.R staff and would have to call in someone else to replace her. In the meantime, the E.R. is operating short-staffed.
As to the other officers not stepping in, remember that a fish rots from the head down. If a department has a culture that doesn't allow other officers to step in, it is the citizen's right and responsibility to hold the administrators accountable. As noted by another poster, the PD belongs to the citizens and THEY are the ones who get to set policy based on the community's needs. It takes work by the citizenry to get this accomplished, but the results are much better for the community than letting the courts set policy, or God forbid, the Attorney General step in with a Consent Decree. Those only serve the attorneys and the bad guys.
And one long lasting condition of this incident will be the distrust of and subtle hostility towards any other officer who comes into the E.R. on business. It's human nature. There a few folks that most cops treat like royalty (or should), those are Dispatchers, Medics, and E.R. personnel. All of them can have a very significant effect on a cop's life. This guy scheit in his own and every other cop in that department's cup.
Just my $0.02
Ed
I would think that the results of the blood test would be protected under HIPPA and once again would take a court order to be admitted as evidence.
Not really relevant to the issue at hand, but I've never written a nurse a ticket. I've always told them that I might need their help someday and I don't want them wondering if I was the cop that wrote them that ticket. By the way...slow down. We try to maintain a good relationship with the ER staff for a number of reasons and it makes everything easier. I'm sure the guys working with him aren't proud of his behavior.
That right there. Now anyone that ends up in that ER with a minor boo boo is going to end up with a foley catheter and stitches without lido. FWIW the CHP here in California will write anyone. They used to hang out at our fire station writing reports and filling their coffee mug until they wrote a chaplain responding to a hospital call in a marked FD sedan. They all said they didn't write firemen or nurses but that was complete bullshit.
... I've never written a nurse a ticket. I've always told them that I might need their help someday and I don't want them wondering if I was the cop that wrote them that ticket. By the way...slow down. We try to maintain a good relationship with the ER staff for a number of reasons and it makes everything easier. I'm sure the guys working with him aren't proud of his behavior.
If you were one of the officers observing the arrest, would you have stepped in to help 'maintain a good relationship with ER staff' or does that only apply to not giving traffic tickets?
Which would weigh heavier, maintaining the required relationship with fellow officers or ER staff in such circumstance?
I think they would be in a better position to defend what ultimately happened in the high speed chase if both drivers were drunk...no innocent victim clinging to life. Making sure that alcohol was found in his system, one way or another, would go a long way in justifying a chase that put the public in peril.
The officer seemed almost frantic to take the truck driver's blood. Just a thought to consider, IMO. I'm not calling for a Lynching.
Some issues to iron out. If the uncounscious person was the driver that caused death or the likelihood of death, then the "implied consent" can be used unless UT courts changed that intent. Some states now have local LE get a telophonc search warrant approval from an "on-call" judge as an addendum to "implied consent". In this case the unconscious person was a victim of the chase which would deem a search warrant should be obtained. Likely the news will drop off after the theatrics with the nurse so we may not find out how it ended. To those offended by the arrest video, you should realize that many look messy and out of control. Clearly the hospital and the SLCPD are not on the same page.
As an aside, the article alludes to the cop taking the blood sample. That may be something unique to UT but normally nurses or doctors obtain the sample for evidence.
I'm with ya flave got a blinder that plugs in the cig light port and would really enjoy the drive home with a [bleep] Margarita!!!
mothers against drunk driving ruined just about everything fun a guy could do in his 20's
That cop is the same azzwipe type that gives all the good poopo a bad rap. We have all seen the type, off duty he patrolled his yard and keeps the kids next door football if it goes over his fence.
Great night for a jail sit flave Tuesday a guy would be plenty rested up for the four day week. LMFAO.
Officer Payne is apparently in a heap of trouble. The mayor and the COP have publicly declared his conduct inappropriate and unacceptable. The city's prosecuting attorney is calling for an investigation. He is on modified duty with the police department. He also moonlights with a local ambulance company, and his employment there is in question, thought the owner is taking a properly measured approach to the situation. He didn't help himself at all when he was caught on video making a retaliatory statement, that from now on his ambulance would only bring transients to the hospital's ER while taking the good patients elsewhere.
As for the nurse, she is playing it brilliantly. She is totally non-vengeful, and isn't taking any position on what should happen to Payne. That girl seems to have her head on straight.
She is playing it spot on and the cop is in big trouble. If she decides to take this to court with all the witnesses she has it's going to be a big payday.
Didn't say it was fake news, and certainly didn't say it was entirely fake news. Reading comprehension surely is not one of your strengths
Anyone who disagrees with steelhead the almighty, can't read can't write blaa blaa blaa or what ever stupid spelling cop bs he wants to throw at them. Get a life you [bleep]ñ loser.
The only way your eyes are so close together is from your brother [bleep] your sister, or as you call them mom and dad.
Yep, the cop's a bully and needs to be fired, fined and some time behind bars. He broke the law when he put his hands on the nurse, and his fellow officers ought to get some unpaid time off too.
Wow, so expecting the police to abide by the fourth amendment of the constitution is obstructing justice? Don't try to read into my words something that isn't there. I didn't say obstructing justice, I said obstructing the collection of evidence. There is a legal principle called "inevitable discovery". The issue I was referring to is that the same information will be obtained with a warrant, so, the facts are "inevitable". All the police would get is the results of the etoh reading WITHOUT a second blood draw. No obstruction of justice, no subversive intent, just avoiding poking the man a second time in the name of bureaucracy.
Just imagine how much money would be saved, how many criminal cases wouldn't be thrown out and how many civil rights cases wouldn't be filed if cops simply got a warrant every time one was needed? You are taking this to a ridiculous point. No one is suggesting any such thing and as I have posted before THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TAKES PRECEDENT. Cops DO get a warrant every time it's needed. Otherwise, the evidence is thrown out and both the cop and the agency are faulted. I don't know who put the burr under your saddle, but it's interfering with your judgement, much less YOUR reading comprehension.
It's the gung ho and lazy cops that are the problem, not the ER staff and not the defense lawyers. If you're discussing this incident, I will , and have, fully agreed. If you're trying to paint all cops with this brush, you are not being realistic.
. 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.
Its a corrupt 'protect and serve your own interests' culture that will never change. A culture of police intimidating other police and citizens alike...theres a little or a lot of swine in all of them.
I'm just a common man with common sense and normal thinking.
And I think... the President, (who I support) just the other day... Released the authorization, for local police to get grenade launchers ? MRAPS ? Fully automatic weapons ? 50 cal rifles ?
And yet... on a professional level, in a rational conversation with another professional (the nurse), They could not grasp the concept of "these are the rules that we have to opp-orate within"
A second officer has been put on modified duty. There has been no announcement, but I suspect that it might be the supervisor who instructed him to go ahead with the draw. The officer in question is also an EMT.
Now, THAT cop is a bully and a criminal. Luckily body cams caught his criminal behavior. He should at least spend some time in jail after he's fired, maybe even prison as he also, under color of law, violated her constitutional rights.
She is playing it spot on and the cop is in big trouble. If she decides to take this to court with all the witnesses she has it's going to be a big payday.
Cop should be fired
She can agree to cooperate with the investigation, but they don't need her testimony or her permission to prosecute the defective that assaulted her, bullied her and then falsely arrested her. The state's attorney can take it to court even if the nurse turned out to be a hostile witness. The the Southern Poverty Law Center will make sure the U.S. Attorney for that district prosecutes him for violation of her civil rights under color of law. This case is going forward regardless of what the nurse wants now. If she were the only witness, and they could not prove the case without her, it might be different.
2nd cop now on administrative leave. No name givin in the updated article. Criminal investigation has started. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Nurse kept her head and the cop acted stupidly.
The defective acted with criminal intent, and yes, it was stupid. He looks to be in his 40s. His life is basically over. I won't shed any tears for him. THAT kind of behavior is what gets ALL the headlines. Then, just like this board, people begin to ASSuME that a lot of cops act that way. That is an incorrect assumption as many assumptions are. With camera phones, car cams and now body cams police discretion and criminal behavior is going to be a thing of the past. It almost already is. You saw the coverage of the defective bullying the nurse. Anyone in America who owns a phone (social media), a TV, a radio or a computer (social media) will know almost instantly when an action like this occurs. The notion that cops are more corrupt than in the past is not only wrong, it's silly.
. 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.
Its a corrupt 'protect and serve your own interests' culture that will never change. A culture of police intimidating other police and citizens alike...theres a little or a lot of swine in all of them.
That is rich fatso.
A back-bencher lawyer riffing on police ethics.
Please, tell us more.
ethics and police , are you sure those words correlate? seen my fair share of LEos requiring a criminal defence lawyer..
Unreal how many people are brainwashed to think it is ok for cops to have the right to take blood without concent or warrant...
In Texas, if a fatality occurs, or if the other driver isn't dead...yet (as in massive internal bleeding or head trauma)...as a result of a traffic accident, by statute the police can compel the defendant to give blood. I've been on the scene in the hospital several times when an uncooperative defendant came in to give a blood sample he knew would hang him in court. They were cuffed to the exam table then about 8 of us grabbed a limb and immobilized them while the nurse took a blood sample, which was then turned over to the officer investigating the accident.
So yeah, Texas cops can compel a blood sample without a written warrant or consent from the defendant.
Considering that in 50% of fatal vehicle accidents in the United States one or both of the drivers had been drinking, I wouldn't be surprised to find similar statutes in other states.
Not anymore. In 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that police can force breathalyzer, but cannot draw blood without consent or a warrant, Utah or anywhere else.
An unconscious person cannot give consent.
The nurse was spot on in claiming that the officer could not legally draw blood. Besides, the unconscious driver was not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Detective Payne is in deep doo-doo, criminally and civilly...assault, unlawful imprisonment, violation of Civil Rights Act, and more. He might get qualified immunity, but I wouldn't count on it.
The mayor and the Chief of Police have disavowed his actions, and DA Sim Gill has initiated an investigation. He's getting no support from the city officials.
He did check with his stupidvisor who directed Detective Payne to proceed, and patiently explained to the nurse that he had been doing this for 20 years, and knew the law. Well, I don't think he will be doing law enforcement for another 20 years. A second un-named officer has been placed on modified duty, and I'm guessing it was him.
It only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole barrel. Most cops are good, some are not. Some of the biggest azzholes I've ever know were cops, who thought that their badge gave them authority over every living, breathing thing on earth. The Utah cop probably fits in that category. On the other hand, most cops are just doing their job, and I'm sure would have handled that situation much differently.
From what I saw on the video, that cop may be in some deep do-do if the nurse goes after him
What's disturbing about the Supreme Court decision that prohibited taking blood samples without consent is that the justices lined up with the activists on the side of protecting the original intent of the Constitution and the originalists on the side of ignoring it in favor of expanding the power of government.
Oh yeah, that is a bad arrest. That is why the nurse was released with out any charges.
The detective stated that the Lieutenant told him via telephone to arrest the nurse. The Lieutenant probably trusted the detective and will get burned. The officers that showed up and assisted in the arrest will get burned. The detective will get "training" and assigned somewhere with less public contact.
From what was seen in the video the nurse was being more than reasonable. I do not know the detective lost his cool.
He should have already been fired. Law enforcement officers should know the law, or at least listen to someone who does,
Kinda ironic, isn't it? It's called "due process", in other words, follow the rules and the law. He will be fired, they are just doing it by the book, not getting pissed and reacting emotionally.
I'm all for getting rid of DUI laws coast to coast.
Who's with me?
Dave
Actually, I do believe the laws should be revisited. The "drunk driving" carousel has become a self-feeding money-making cottage industry for lawyers and municipalities.
May I ask why you obviously omitted the "with pay." part?
Here is how that sentence from the link you posted really reads: "Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski announced that as a result of the criminal investigation being launched by the Salt Lake County District Attorney, Detective Jeff Payne will be placed on full administrative leave with pay. Bolded portion by me.
Another question: are you a cop, steward in the union, or a member of the media? J/K about the media. Trying to understand why you thought it was necessary to cull information some might find meaningful.
She is playing it spot on and the cop is in big trouble. If she decides to take this to court with all the witnesses she has it's going to be a big payday.
Cop should be fired
It didn't look like she was playing in the least to me. She looked like a genuine concerned professional who was intent on doing the right thing and being fully transparent. Where do you see playing?
He should have already been fired. Law enforcement officers should know the law, or at least listen to someone who does,
Kinda ironic, isn't it? It's called "due process", in other words, follow the rules and the law. He will be fired, they are just doing it by the book, not getting pissed and reacting emotionally.
Ed
Yep, and his troubles have just begun. First he'll be fired, then the state and federal government will prepare cases against him. Additionally, he will undoubtedly be facing civil suits for assault and false imprisonment (state suits). Then the federal government will try him for violation of the nurse's civil rights under cover of law. He's in deep doo-doo.
He should have already been fired. Law enforcement officers should know the law, or at least listen to someone who does,
Kinda ironic, isn't it? It's called "due process", in other words, follow the rules and the law. He will be fired, they are just doing it by the book, not getting pissed and reacting emotionally.
Ed
Yep, and his troubles have just begun. First he'll be fired, then the state and federal government will prepare cases against him. Additionally, he will undoubtedly be facing civil suits for assault and false imprisonment (state suits). Then the federal government will try him for violation of the nurse's civil rights under cover of law. He's in deep doo-doo.
All of those are things that could happen , but they won't.
He may get fired, but I doubt it, he was ordered by his Lt to do exactly what he did. Kinda like firing cops that follow orders to stand down and let Antifa beat heads. No firing.
He may get sued in civil court, but that will be no skin off his ass, the city will pay the legal fees and the court settlement.
The Feds will not pursue any civil rights violations or constitutional rights violations, she was white and had a job, nuff said right there.
I'm all for getting rid of DUI laws coast to coast.
Who's with me?
Dave
I'd go for that as long as the family of anyone injured by one can legally blow the drunks brains out along with whoever served the drunk. What would be better for the country?
He should have already been fired. Law enforcement officers should know the law, or at least listen to someone who does,
Kinda ironic, isn't it? It's called "due process", in other words, follow the rules and the law. He will be fired, they are just doing it by the book, not getting pissed and reacting emotionally.
Ed
Yep, and his troubles have just begun. First he'll be fired, then the state and federal government will prepare cases against him. Additionally, he will undoubtedly be facing civil suits for assault and false imprisonment (state suits). Then the federal government will try him for violation of the nurse's civil rights under cover of law. He's in deep doo-doo.
All of those are things that could happen , but they won't.
He may get fired, but I doubt it, he was ordered by his Lt to do exactly what he did. Kinda like firing cops that follow orders to stand down and let Antifa beat heads. No firing.
He may get sued in civil court, but that will be no skin off his ass, the city will pay the legal fees and the court settlement.
The Feds will not pursue any civil rights violations or constitutional rights violations, she was white and had a job, nuff said right there.
I retired in 2010 but I do not believe Louisiana law has changed. Title 32:666 states "A physician, registered nurse, LPN, EMT,.... SHALL perform a chemical test when directed to do so by a law enforcement officer. The same section clearly states that the vehicle operator may not refuse in a case of fatality or serious bodily injury. As to the driver in question not being a suspect, I can speak from personal experience having investigated a good number of accidents. In almost every accident it is not perfectly clear exactly what happened and who may be at fault and who is lying about who was driving etc. Also evidence of intoxication is not waiting around although usually an hour or two or three doesn't matter. Hospital policy does not trump state law. Utah law and Louisiana law are two different things but as I understand this situation the nurse was attempting to block an officer from obtaining blood and she was not merely declining to do it herself. One of the last big accidents I worked was a boat accident in which 3 people were critically injured by an intoxicated off duty deputy sheriff. He would not provide a breath test, so we hauled him to the ER and took a blood sample. He was double the limit. And by the way the test done routinely upon admission to the ER is not suitable for evidence. There are chain of custody issues and a blood sample has to be guarded or secured at all times. This officer while maybe being a little rough may have been stressed and trying to secure evidence while it was still available. He may have needed to go back to the accident scene and not been in any mood to hear what some nurse thought about evidence collection. Of course he may also be wrong in what he did, but I bet none of us know enough to make a judgement.
Why is he not in jail or out on bond? If I assaulted and kidnapped a woman I would not be walking around a free man. Every single badge there should be charged for assisting in this crime.
Oh I do declare! You know cousin Jim Paul. Lmfao Get a life you fûckn moronic POS. Role the wheel chars over to the blinds and see if that van is still parked out front.
Why is he not in jail or out on bond? If I assaulted and kidnapped a woman I would not be walking around a free man. Every single badge there should be charged for assisting in this crime.
Think that's the question lots would like to know. You or I would be locked up. Seem lots of bad people hide behind badges and bibles.
I don't have time to read the whole thing here so if this is repetitive, please pardon. It isn't really about whether or not a blood draw is legal, admissable or whatever. It's about arresting somebody because they refused to do something a cop said. The cop wasn't telling the person to quit driving drunk, quit beating somebody or something like that. The cop was ordering a nurse to perform a task she wasn't comfortable doing. The task wasn't involved in saving the person's life either. So she gets arrested. There is no way in hell that should have happened regardless of what laws or procedures have been put in place by our fearless leaders.
You can't get a person to do something like that, find another nurse. If the nurse was wrong, tell the hospital administration and let them suspend her or fire her. That's the procedure. You don't arrest somebody over this.
I don't have time to read the whole thing here so if this is repetitive, please pardon. It isn't really about whether or not a blood draw is legal, admissable or whatever. It's about arresting somebody because they refused to do something a cop said. The cop wasn't telling the person to quit driving drunk, quit beating somebody or something like that. The cop was ordering a nurse to perform a task she wasn't comfortable doing. The task wasn't involved in saving the person's life either. So she gets arrested. There is no way in hell that should have happened regardless of what laws or procedures have been put in place by our fearless leaders.
You can't get a person to do something like that, find another nurse. If the nurse was wrong, tell the hospital administration and let them suspend her or fire her. That's the procedure. You don't arrest somebody over this.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is many hospitals and medical staff (dr's, nurses, hospital staff etc) are anti-gun and not pro-LE to begin with and intentionally make themselves as big a pain as possible.
BGG, While I haven't had many interactions with the other medical staff, every ER I've dealt with have been 100% pro LE. Maybe it's because they see the real world.
BGG, While I haven't had many interactions with the other medical staff, every ER I've dealt with have been 100% pro LE. Maybe it's because they see the real world.
Ed
I am neither a cop nor a nurse, but my brother is an ER Nurse. I give him grief, of course, "Not many men in your profession, though, are there, Greg?"
Anyways, the cops love him and he's friends with all of them. He's 6' 5" 350lbs and played college ball- offensive line. They bring all their hopped up and drunk patients to him.
I've heard stories of strung-out druggies fighting the cops and my brother coming into the room picking 'em up (the druggies) by the throat and slamming them onto the bed so they could be restrained. With compassion, of course .
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is many hospitals and medical staff (dr's, nurses, hospital staff etc) are anti-gun and not pro-LE to begin with and intentionally make themselves as big a pain as possible.
In my experience there are three professions that don't allow on-duty personnel to admit they're wrong.
1.) Law enforcement
2.) Medical professionals (nurses, doctors, etc.)
3.) Public school staff
If you threw a superintendent into the OP's mix, you'd have a real rodeo on your hands.
BGG, While I haven't had many interactions with the other medical staff, every ER I've dealt with have been 100% pro LE. Maybe it's because they see the real world.
Ed
I've seen medical staff in hospitals (big and small) get really schitty with LE personnel.
I've even seen nurses tell uniformed personnel they couldn't have a gun in the facility because of their no-gun policy. To the point the nurse was yelling while the badge was laughing and telling her to call the police.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is many hospitals and medical staff (dr's, nurses, hospital staff etc) are anti-gun and not pro-LE to begin with and intentionally make themselves as big a pain as possible.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is medical staff manage to deal with difficult people without resulting to billy clubs, tazers, firearms or placing them under arrest.
We have a security team that is unarmed but most are ex-police/military types and very good at non-lethal restraint. Plus they are mostly big men who can just plain overpower someone whether individually or, as they prefer to act, in teams. We all get trained on what "code grey" or "code silver" means over the hospital PA system. I don't believe they have the power of arrest but can hold someone for police or in many cases just escort the unruly person off the premises.
BGG, While I haven't had many interactions with the other medical staff, every ER I've dealt with have been 100% pro LE. Maybe it's because they see the real world.
Ed
I've seen medical staff in hospitals (big and small) get really schitty with LE personnel. I've even seen nurses tell uniformed personnel they couldn't have a gun in the facility because of their no-gun policy. To the point the nurse was yelling while the badge was laughing and telling her to call the police. Dave
I would love to see that exchange on video.
I guess I've been lucky.
The only people I've had issues with were the staff at the state psych hospital who demanded I remove the handcuffs from an involuntary commitment person before we were allowed in the building. It had taken four of us to get the "patient" into those cuffs and I damned sure wasn't going to remove them when it was only me. The staff were prohibited from coming outside of the building to assist in any way. so I just waited until the Intake Supervisor showed up.
He told them to let me in and escort us to the intake exam room, then take the cuffs off.
He had been assaulted by another "patient" before after telling the officer to remove the cuffs and leave. The officer did, and the fight was on. The officer was on the other side of the locked door when the "patient" went off, so he stood there and watched. The Supervisor learned, but the other staff apparently didn't.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is many hospitals and medical staff (dr's, nurses, hospital staff etc) are anti-gun and not pro-LE to begin with and intentionally make themselves as big a pain as possible.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is medical staff manage to deal with difficult people without resulting to billy clubs, tazers, firearms or placing them under arrest.
I, too, have seen the same thing. I wonder if it's the image people have of cops not trying to help anyone, and the hospital staff being seen as someone who helps others? Or that medical staff don't come across as aggressive to begin with, which is my guess? Dunno, but it is real!
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is medical staff manage to deal with difficult people without resulting to billy clubs, tazers, firearms or placing them under arrest.
I, too, have seen the same thing. I wonder if it's the image people have of cops not trying to help anyone, and the hospital staff being seen as someone who helps others? Or that medical staff don't come across as aggressive to begin with, which is my guess? Dunno, but it is real!
Ed
I think a lot of it has to do with the medical staff not taking them to jail for their alleged crime.
"One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is medical staff manage to deal with difficult people without resulting to billy clubs, tazers, firearms or placing them under arrest."
Talk to them calmly, breathe deeply and regularly yourself, don't engage them in debate but let them vent if that's what they want, stay close to an exit, don't try to handle anyone yourself but call code grey (combative person) or signal someone to do so, that will bring security teams post haste.
I don't deal with patients, where I work now I never even see them, but we all have to watch the video about this every year.
The supreme court decision Birchfield vs. North Dakota doesn't apply to potential other cases. That case did not have the same circumstances as this one. I believe the nurse in question was not ordered to do anything but to stop interfering with the person drawing blood. We may find that the officer correctly removed her from the room. Maybe he was a little rough, but he was under no obligation to obey hospital policy.
I, too, have seen the same thing. I wonder if it's the image people have of cops not trying to help anyone, and the hospital staff being seen as someone who helps others? Or that medical staff don't come across as aggressive to begin with, which is my guess? Dunno, but it is real!
Ed
I think a lot of it has to do with the medical staff not taking them to jail for their alleged crime.
I retired in 2010 but I do not believe Louisiana law has changed. Title 32:666 states "A physician, registered nurse, LPN, EMT,.... SHALL perform a chemical test when directed to do so by a law enforcement officer. The same section clearly states that the vehicle operator may not refuse in a case of fatality or serious bodily injury. As to the driver in question not being a suspect, I can speak from personal experience having investigated a good number of accidents. In almost every accident it is not perfectly clear exactly what happened and who may be at fault and who is lying about who was driving etc. Also evidence of intoxication is not waiting around although usually an hour or two or three doesn't matter. Hospital policy does not trump state law. Utah law and Louisiana law are two different things but as I understand this situation the nurse was attempting to block an officer from obtaining blood and she was not merely declining to do it herself. One of the last big accidents I worked was a boat accident in which 3 people were critically injured by an intoxicated off duty deputy sheriff. He would not provide a breath test, so we hauled him to the ER and took a blood sample. He was double the limit. And by the way the test done routinely upon admission to the ER is not suitable for evidence. There are chain of custody issues and a blood sample has to be guarded or secured at all times. This officer while maybe being a little rough may have been stressed and trying to secure evidence while it was still available. He may have needed to go back to the accident scene and not been in any mood to hear what some nurse thought about evidence collection. Of course he may also be wrong in what he did, but I bet none of us know enough to make a judgement.
The supreme court decision Birchfield vs. North Dakota doesn't apply to potential other cases. That case did not have the same circumstances as this one. I believe the nurse in question was not ordered to do anything but to stop interfering with the person drawing blood. We may find that the officer correctly removed her from the room. Maybe he was a little rough, but he was under no obligation to obey hospital policy.
"Maybe he was a little rough, but he was under no obligation to obey hospital policy."
I think any cop who is injured on duty would think twice before allowing an ambulance to take him to this hospital - the "golden hour" is critical in serious situations and perhaps an injured or wounded cop might be given two aspirin and allowed to rest for a couple of hours!
Don't understand this. In PA, hospital staff draws blood, even in the DUI center. But, the cops have to have the proper paperwork in place. Many times, medical drug and alcohol screenings take place for pt. treatment and, if the police want the results, a subpoena has to be presented. Never saw anything like this. Cops have always been our support and allies in the ER.
Held: 1. The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests. Pp. 13–36.
It's not just dicta, it is the ruling of the Court.
The officer could not have possibly gotten a warrant because the unconscious driver was not a suspect and was not under arrest. And, yes, he was a police officer from Rigby, ID, my home town. Rigby has issued a statement thanking the nurse for protecting his rights.
So if the cop took the blood. And if the guy was guilty as hell and killed 3 nuns, 2 orphans and a smurff. And if it gets to court and gets thrown out because it was a bad draw...... Brilliant frickin cop.......
These officers should have stepped in.Video clearly show Payne was acting like a dirt bag and he nor his watch commander knew the law; which for the rest of us is No Excuse
The Cop is in big trouble, A lot of witnesses on this one.
If she so desires she'll have a good payday.
While a payday for the nurse might sound good it just punishes the taxpayer , better that the cop be convicted of felony kidnapping & given prison time.
Harry M, you have taken a lot of flak lately for being anti-cop but this clearly shows you have a point. Story later points out that the cops were trying to cover their butt from the chase that caused the head on crash with the trucker( I believe) to some way blame the victim . This will cost all LEO in the long haul.
BGG, While I haven't had many interactions with the other medical staff, every ER I've dealt with have been 100% pro LE. Maybe it's because they see the real world.
Ed
I've seen medical staff in hospitals (big and small) get really schitty with LE personnel.
I've even seen nurses tell uniformed personnel they couldn't have a gun in the facility because of their no-gun policy. To the point the nurse was yelling while the badge was laughing and telling her to call the police.
Dave
My wife has been in nursing 30 years. There's always exceptions but in general her and faculty get along very well with LEO's. They often have need of LEO for unruly patients or family. Deal with LEO on a regular basis bringing in perps in need of medical attention. Percentage wise it seems quite a few marry LEO. This video doesn't sit well with me. I think the nurse is going to get money out of this and the department in question come out looking like an ass.
Maybe I am wrong but after Nurse was released and not charged with any crime this showed clearly the cop was NOT within the letter of the law. just my $0.02
We have a security team that is unarmed but most are ex-police/military types and very good at non-lethal restraint. Plus they are mostly big men who can just plain overpower someone whether individually or, as they prefer to act, in teams. We all get trained on what "code grey" or "code silver" means over the hospital PA system. I don't believe they have the power of arrest but can hold someone for police or in many cases just escort the unruly person off the premises.
Looking at the security staff in the video, the only thing in danger from them was the box of bear claws in the break room. Lol.
Harry M, you have taken a lot of flak lately for being anti-cop but this clearly shows you have a point. Story later points out that the cops were trying to cover their butt from the chase that caused the head on crash with the trucker( I believe) to some way blame the victim . This will cost all LEO in the long haul.
No worries for me, I know the drill. If you point out problems in any public sector jobs you will be set upon like a french fry in a McDonald's parking lot. It's a learned and conditioned response. When the facts must never be discussed then the messenger must be demonized. Public Employee Unions invented Hate Speech long before the left began using it. If you really want to drain the swamp then you had better include Public Employee Scam Unions at the top of the list.
Well, that would be a different hospital, wouldn't it? You're welcome to come tell Sergei what you think of him. He's about 6' 5", maybe 230, none of it fat that I can see.
Well, that would be a different hospital, wouldn't it? You're welcome to come tell Sergei what you think of him. He's about 6' 5", maybe 230, none of it fat that I can see.
I saw the video on the news last night, but I didn't see anyone get beat up. Roughly handled yes, beat up is just a bit of a stretch. Obviously a bad situation, I hope that cop enjoys his last paid vacation.
Maybe he was a little rough, but he was under no obligation to obey hospital policy.
He did if the policies of the hospital are based on current federal law.
This. Hospital policy is no more than HIPPA policy in fewer words. It has the standing of law.
I stipulate that there are a lot of no good overbearing L.E. officers out there. I am sure everyone involved in this situation wishes it had been different. But I still do not see how a trained police official drawing blood for evidence violates HIPPA. What section did it violate? And if it did, what business did a private citizen have stepping in to block evidence collection? Legality of evidence collection is something that courts decide at trial. I have seen trials where that issue is argued all day long. This nurse seems to have butted in where she had no standing and the proper thing to do in a case like that is to remove such a person to a place where they cannot interfere. I have been married to a nurse for 30 years and she like most nurses is a very caring person. Through her I am acquainted with lots of good nurses and most of them have no business doing law enforcement work. And some L.E. officers have no business doing law enforcement work. That may be the case in this situation but I don't think we know enough to say. If you want to see a video also from Salt Lake City that depicts police brutality watch Officer Bron Cruz shoot Dillon Taylor in broad daylight at a convenience store in August 2014. That's brutality, the little nurse getting forced outside, not so much.
After watching that video, I keep thinking, what if that nurse was my wife, my girlfriend or sister. That cop needs to do time behind bars, nothing less.
do not see how a trained police official drawing blood for evidence violates HIPPA...nurse seems to have butted in where she had no standing
The first problem is that the unconscious man was not a suspect, nor was he under arrest. He was the victim of a bad crash caused by an off-balance truck driver pursued by police. Until and unless under arrest or detained, the officer has no right to perform a search at all. A police officer can't just choose people at random and shake them to see what comes out of their pockets.
The next problem is that even if he were a suspect or under arrest, the Supreme Court has ruled that a compulsory blood draw requires a warrant or consent. The officer had no warrant, and an unconscious man cannot give consent. So the officer is in deep violation of the 4th Amendment.
The nurse was doing exactly what she should have done. As I understand it, the officer is a phlebotomist, and simply announced that he was going to draw blood. (Other accounts say that the hospital had already drawn blood, and the officer wanted it. In that case, handing it over would be a HUGE HIPAA violation.) She was perfectly right to tell the officer he could not have blood samples. The patient was unconscious and in the care of the hospital. They owe him protection of his personal rights, and the nurse is the agent of the hospital. Had she allowed it, the patient could have sued the hospital. She seems to be the only one in the scenario that had her wits about her. Security was dumb and useless and the police were legally clueless.
do not see how a trained police official drawing blood for evidence violates HIPPA...nurse seems to have butted in where she had no standing
The first problem is that the unconscious man was not a suspect, nor was he under arrest. He was the victim of a bad crash caused by an off-balance truck driver pursued by police. Until and unless under arrest or detained, the officer has no right to perform a search at all. A police officer can't just choose people at random and shake them to see what comes out of their pockets.
The next problem is that even if he were a suspect or under arrest, the Supreme Court has ruled that a compulsory blood draw requires a warrant or consent. The officer had no warrant, and an unconscious man cannot give consent. So the officer is in deep violation of the 4th Amendment.
The nurse was doing exactly what she should have done. As I understand it, the officer is a phlebotomist, and simply announced that he was going to draw blood. She was perfectly right to tell the officer he could not do that. The patient was unconscious and in the care of the hospital. They owe him protection of his personal rights, and the nurse is the agent of the hospital. Had she allowed it, the patient could have sued the hospital. She seems to be the only one in the scenario that had her wits about her. Security was dumb and useless and the police were legally clueless.
Exactly.
Laws trump policies, but in this case, the officer, I assume, was not an employee of the hospital and could only use their facilities and equipment at their behest. The nurse, as an employee with standing in the hospital, could tell him not to use the equipment. Furthermore, once in the hospital, the patient is under the care of the hospital and unless under arrest, probably can't be moved without the hospital's consent, since he or his proxy couldn't consent. So the nurse outranks the cop. Cop is wrong. End of story.
"In the extended tapes you can hear the cop speaking to each other. Q: Why don't we just get a warrant? A: There's no PC(probable cause). I talked to Logan(PD)."
Hmm.. A white woman suddenly experience what poor minorities have experienced for decades. Abuse of power and lack of respect the law or constitution by "Police officers".
This stuff is pretty simple. You're either for law and order, or against it. Twist away...that's what common people do.
I am 100% for it LT. But this guy was wrong. He is what gives guys like you, my Son, my daughter in law, and all officers a bad name. His type needs to be removed from the profession. You guys have a tough row to hoe anyway without this type of officer.
do not see how a trained police official drawing blood for evidence violates HIPPA...nurse seems to have butted in where she had no standing
The first problem is that the unconscious man was not a suspect, nor was he under arrest. He was the victim of a bad crash caused by an off-balance truck driver pursued by police. Until and unless under arrest or detained, the officer has no right to perform a search at all. A police officer can't just choose people at random and shake them to see what comes out of their pockets.
The next problem is that even if he were a suspect or under arrest, the Supreme Court has ruled that a compulsory blood draw requires a warrant or consent. The officer had no warrant, and an unconscious man cannot give consent. So the officer is in deep violation of the 4th Amendment.
The nurse was doing exactly what she should have done. As I understand it, the officer is a phlebotomist, and simply announced that he was going to draw blood. (Other accounts say that the hospital had already drawn blood, and the officer wanted it. In that case, handing it over would be a HUGE HIPAA violation.) She was perfectly right to tell the officer he could not have blood samples. The patient was unconscious and in the care of the hospital. They owe him protection of his personal rights, and the nurse is the agent of the hospital. Had she allowed it, the patient could have sued the hospital. She seems to be the only one in the scenario that had her wits about her. Security was dumb and useless and the police were legally clueless.
do not see how a trained police official drawing blood for evidence violates HIPPA...nurse seems to have butted in where she had no standing
The first problem is that the unconscious man was not a suspect, nor was he under arrest. He was the victim of a bad crash caused by an off-balance truck driver pursued by police. Until and unless under arrest or detained, the officer has no right to perform a search at all. A police officer can't just choose people at random and shake them to see what comes out of their pockets.
The next problem is that even if he were a suspect or under arrest, the Supreme Court has ruled that a compulsory blood draw requires a warrant or consent. The officer had no warrant, and an unconscious man cannot give consent. So the officer is in deep violation of the 4th Amendment.
The nurse was doing exactly what she should have done. As I understand it, the officer is a phlebotomist, and simply announced that he was going to draw blood. (Other accounts say that the hospital had already drawn blood, and the officer wanted it. In that case, handing it over would be a HUGE HIPAA violation.) She was perfectly right to tell the officer he could not have blood samples. The patient was unconscious and in the care of the hospital. They owe him protection of his personal rights, and the nurse is the agent of the hospital. Had she allowed it, the patient could have sued the hospital. She seems to be the only one in the scenario that had her wits about her. Security was dumb and useless and the police were legally clueless.
The truck driver (who was also a Reserve Cop from Idaho) was the one in the hospital and was hit by a driver the cops were pursuing in a high speed chase who I believe died at the scene.
Correct, from what I can gather, Implied Consent does NOT apply to CONSCIOUS people. A warrant is needed in Utah to draw blood if CONSCIOUS.
A warrant ISN'T needed to draw blood if UNCONSCIOUS, is what I gather.
I don't think that question has been addressed by the courts yet. While the law doesn't specifically deny it, it also doesn't specifically authorize it.
For whatever reason, that cop ignored one of the basic rules of police work, i.e., time is on the cop's side. He also didn't take time to think this through. Once the guy is in custody, he no longer has (or should have!) the opportunity to consume any more intoxicant(s). Given that, the officer could (I say should) have posted another officer to stay with the suspect, and the arresting officer should have gone and applied for a search warrant for the blood.
I have never seen an unconscious person brought into an E.R. that did not have blood drawn by the E.R. staff for medical reasons, i.e., find out what is in the blood stream BEFORE they attempt to treat them. Once that blood is drawn, the time it was drawn is part of the record keeping. The suspect's blood alcohol level is "frozen in time" at that point and there are legally and medically accepted formulas for calculating the blood level at the time of arrest. There is no exigent circumstance that require a warrantless seizure.
As to the arrest of the nurse, IMHO, that was uncalled for. As the article noted, charges were dropped. I would expect a Title 1983 action to follow (Violation of Civil Rights) and the City will have to pay. Hopefully, the officer will too. The hospital should join in as co-plaintiff as they, too, suffered damages by the nurse's arrest. They lost a vital member of the E.R staff and would have to call in someone else to replace her. In the meantime, the E.R. is operating short-staffed.
As to the other officers not stepping in, remember that a fish rots from the head down. If a department has a culture that doesn't allow other officers to step in, it is the citizen's right and responsibility to hold the administrators accountable. As noted by another poster, the PD belongs to the citizens and THEY are the ones who get to set policy based on the community's needs. It takes work by the citizenry to get this accomplished, but the results are much better for the community than letting the courts set policy, or God forbid, the Attorney General step in with a Consent Decree. Those only serve the attorneys and the bad guys.
And one long lasting condition of this incident will be the distrust of and subtle hostility towards any other officer who comes into the E.R. on business. It's human nature. There a few folks that most cops treat like royalty (or should), those are Dispatchers, Medics, and E.R. personnel. All of them can have a very significant effect on a cop's life. This guy scheit in his own and every other cop in that department's cup.
Just my $0.02
Ed
My short email to the SLC Chief indicated that the department will be known as "nurse beaters" for forty years .......
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
The driver who was fleeing the Utah Highway Patrol and caused the wreck was dead. Any possible charges against him died with him. There was nothing much left to investigate.
The innocent victim of the crash was lying in a coma.
Why would someone from Salt Lake PD be in such a sweat to obtain the victim's blood sample? Go to the hospital, spend a couple of hours, force a confrontation with Nurse Wubbel? As posted earlier, he apparently knew that he had no probable cause and could not get a warrant. Why try to force the situation? Implied consent has not been the law in Utah since 2007.
If I were cynical, I might suspect that he was looking for evidence to prevent the victim from suing. In Utah, pursuing police have a duty of care to innocent bystanders.
This stuff is pretty simple. You're either for law and order, or against it. Twist away...that's what common people do.
ob·tuse əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit adjective 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand. "he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse" synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless;
You're mentality is the problem. Law and order does not Trump personal liberty, and you are very obviously not intelligent enough to "protect" anyone, from anything you dolt. And by the way, cops ARE common people you self aggrandizing, conceited cock sucker.
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
The driver who was fleeing the Utah Highway Patrol and caused the wreck was dead. Any possible charges against him died with him. There was nothing much left to investigate.
The innocent victim of the crash was lying in a coma.
Why would someone from Salt Lake PD be in such a sweat to obtain the victim's blood sample? Go to the hospital, spend a couple of hours, force a confrontation with Nurse Wubbel? As posted earlier, he apparently knew that he had no probable cause and could not get a warrant. Why try to force the situation? Implied consent has not been the law in Utah since 2007.
If I were cynical, I might suspect that he was looking for evidence to prevent the victim from suing. In Utah, pursuing police have a duty of care to innocent bystanders.
So if a car runs a stop light and slams into me, and I have a .47 BAC, I'm still golden, since I wasn't the one that ran a redlight? Is that what you are trying to sell?
So if a car runs a stop light and slams into me, and I have a .47 BAC, I'm still golden, since I wasn't the one that ran a redlight? Is that what you are trying to sell?
Well, if you're dead, whether or not you are golden depends on a Higher Authority.
If you are alive, with .47 BAC, would you know it? Or care?
Seriously, I don't think the example applies to the current situation. There is no evidence to lead to suspicion that the unconscious driver was impaired. The question is whether the police can force a blood draw on on unconscious person not under arrest or suspected of a crime.
The accident was caused by a driver fleeing police. That driver is dead. Under Utah law, the state may have some liability if the pursuing officers were not exercising due caution to protect innocent bystanders, like the guy in a coma.
So if a car runs a stop light and slams into me, and I have a .47 BAC, I'm still golden, since I wasn't the one that ran a redlight? Is that what you are trying to sell?
If a car runs a stop light and slams into you and you've done nothing to give probable cause or be under arrest and are in a coma a police officer needs a warrant to get yer blood.
Ps.
Supposedly the signed CDL in this specific case waived the comatose victim's right in this case.
They had no probable cause and admitted to that. They knew there was going to be an issue getting a draw but the officer was instructed to get one no matter what. There was a high speed chase involving cops, a guy who died during the chase and an innocent guy in a coma which was a direct cause of the chase.
This is a very blatant case of the dept trying to cover their posteriors. A decent human being would have stopped by to check on his well-being, not try to throw him under the bus.
I may have missed it. What was their reason to chase this guy down?
He is what gives guys like you, my Son, my daughter in law, and all officers a bad name. His type needs to be removed from the profession. You guys have a tough row to hoe anyway without this type of officer.
Why do the duck & weave cops (and naive cop lovers) here keep talking in singular rather than plural?
There is a problem that goes far beyond this one detective...it extends to that detectives Dept and chain of command as well as the other officers present( University of Utah police and Dept. of Public Safety), that provide security for the hospital. Officers from three depts.were present for the unjustified arrest and all are complicit.
Officers from three depts all displaying blatant disregard for the nurses rights(and patient rights) and the same old closed rank LE attitude., which indicates a symptomatic and systematic problem in police culture.
Such behavior by all those officers is similar to my experiences and others I have observed, and does nothing but reinforce my view of LE culture.....collusion, gang thuggery ,dereliction of duty,...etc
Once upon a time I ordered a toxicology test on a drowning victim who was a passenger in a boat accident. He was not thought to be at fault in causing the accident. The test came back negative for drugs and alcohol. Several years later there was a civil trial concerning this accident. The man's widow and two minor children were making a claim for their loss. Believe it or not the defense attorney had apparently not studied my report or was trying to confuse the jury or whatever and tried to place the blame on the victim claiming he was drinking and did not have a life jacket. Don't you know that widow was glad I had a negative toxicology report and I recorded that the boat had 3 Coast Guard approved life jackets on board. You see, a toxicology test can help an innocent person involved in a accident when lawyers start trying to spread blame around. You never know what evidence will be important or who it might benefit several years later. A lot of evidence not gathered timely will not be available in a short time. If you have never had to gather and protect all the evidence that comes with a big complicated accident scene you probably cannot appreciate the pressure involved in such a situation. A civilian making a legal determination that she is unqualified to make and blocking evidence collection needs to be removed from the scene, which is what happened. That nurse is probably lucky that all she got was a short detention. It probably helps her case that Salt Lake is no longer a Mormon run town and has become quite liberal.
Once upon a time I ordered a toxicology test on a drowning victim who was a passenger in a boat accident. He was not thought to be at fault in causing the accident. The test came back negative for drugs and alcohol. Several years later there was a civil trial concerning this accident. The man's widow and two minor children were making a claim for their loss. Believe it or not the defense attorney had apparently not studied my report or was trying to confuse the jury or whatever and tried to place the blame on the victim claiming he was drinking and did not have a life jacket. Don't you know that widow was glad I had a negative toxicology report and I recorded that the boat had 3 Coast Guard approved life jackets on board. You see, a toxicology test can help an innocent person involved in a accident when lawyers start trying to spread blame around. You never know what evidence will be important or who it might benefit several years later. A lot of evidence not gathered timely will not be available in a short time. If you have never had to gather and protect all the evidence that comes with a big complicated accident scene you probably cannot appreciate the pressure involved in such a situation. A civilian making a legal determination that she is unqualified to make and blocking evidence collection needs to be removed from the scene, which is what happened. That nurse is probably lucky that all she got was a short detention. It probably helps her case that Salt Lake is no longer a Mormon run town and has become quite liberal.
So 4th Amendment be damned. A cop can just take what he wants and beat anyone who disagree's with him?
Besides, I don't believe the cop in this video was in any way trying to protect the unconscious persons who's constitutional rights he was attempting to violate. They couldn't arrest the dead guy, so he was looking for someone else to blame for this cluster phluck.
Hastings. You're mentality is exactly why the 2nd amendment was written. If you think resistance to tyranny equates to liberalism then you have alot to learn. Absolutely pitiful that someone sworn to uphold the Constitution has such a limited understanding of it. If you are still working in LE, please switch careers.
A civilian making a legal determination that she is unqualified to make...
She did not make a legal determination ,she as a registered nurse was simply following the law (and hospital policy based on such) as legally required.
Blacks law dictionary:
What is DETERMINATION? The decision of a court of justice.
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly say every search requires a warrant, and courts rule all kinds of ways on searches, and then there are appeals ad infintum. So let us say a cop makes an unlawful search. There will be a day in court and a judge will either allow the evidence or throw it out. I don't believe I would inject myself into instructing officers on a scene about their methods if they weren't illegally physically harming someone. Like I told my nephew who interfered in the arrest of his friend for DUI "You fight the police in court not out on the road". My nephew got slung down on the side of the road and cuffed when all he had to do was sit quiet and mind his business. I retired after thirty years L.E. service. I never believed in treating people rough or disrespectful. Some officers are crooked and overbearing liars and I almost hate them for it. I'm betting a lot of this nurses co-workers know how she is and are getting a good laugh out of what happened. Probably not her first emotional outpouring. Remember I am married to a wonderful nurse and she has my utmost respect for the love and care she shows for her patients, also I respect very much the many medical professionals in my acquaintance. I always worked well with emergency room personnel when we were there investigating or brought in an injured person. This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
"The law is for protection of the people Rules are rules and any fool can see We don't need no slim CIVILIAN nurses Standing up to cops like you and me Nosiree."
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly say every search requires a warrant
The only possible way you could sustain your belief that this wasn't the original intent is to believe that the Founders intended to give police officials an option of 1) deciding on their own whether probable cause exists and then proceeding with their search accordingly, or 2) going to a judge with oath or affirmation of the basis of probable cause in the hope of securing a warrant from him.
That makes no sense in light of the purpose, and historical context, of the Fourth Amendment. The context was the Redcoats writing their own search warrants without applying for one from a judge. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent that from happening in the US.
....I retired after thirty years L.E. service.... .... This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse....
The nurse was following the actual law and by doing so defending the rights of her police officer patient.
Police in their incompetence or downright shiftiness, erroneously cited “exigent circumstances and implied consent law” which has not had legal justification in Utah since 2007.
Originally Posted by jackmountain
Originally Posted by ltppowell
This stuff is pretty simple. You're either for law and order, or against it. Twist away...that's what common people do.
You're mentality is the problem. Law and order does not Trump personal liberty, and you are very obviously not intelligent enough to "protect" anyone, from anything you dolt. And by the way, cops ARE common people you self aggrandizing, conceited c**k sucker.
George Orwells -'Animal Farm' where the power-hungry PIG thought he was more equal than the rest..
The nurse cannot/could not prevent the cop from collecting a blood sample legally. Legally what she had the authority to do if she was the ranking hospital/ER official on the scene, was prevent the cop from violating the hospital's policies and procedures by not allowing the cop to use the premises or equipment, which belongs to the hospital and ostensibly, she would be in charge of. Further, once the patient comes into the hospital or ER, the patient is the ward of the hospital not the police unless he is placed under arrest by them or they have a warrant to do what they wanted to do. So she had every right to order the cop not to do that. If you try to physically prevent it, you might be in the right but the cops and courts are probably going to twist everything they can to come down on the side of the cop and not you.
With the knowledge of no actual suspect and no probable cause to justify a blood sample, watch commander( Lt. James Tracy) who issued the arrest order, must have been as much out of his flippin mind as the arresting cop.
how do ER staff 100% within their legal right, reason with a chain of LE imbeciles apathetic and belligerent toward legal protocols?
I'm betting a lot of this nurses co-workers know how she is and are getting a good laugh out of what happened. Probably not her first emotional outpouring.
This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
It was in all actuality started by the runner. She did what she was legally bound to do in order to protect herself and the Hospital from Liability. She made it clear to the officer that he needed a warrant and she would comply. The officer was in the wrong.
Are you really an officer?? You need to brush up on the 4th amendment. And yes, you are wrong.
This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
It was in all actuality started by the runner. She did what she was legally bound to do in order to protect herself and the Hospital from Liability. She made it clear to the officer that he needed a warrant and she would comply. The officer was in the wrong.
Are you really an officer?? You need to brush up on the 4th amendment. And yes, you are wrong.
Jim
Not only the 4th Amendment, but the recent Supreme Court ruling .
I have no doubt he is a LEO, full of himself and thinks his badge IS the LAW and the Constitution is just a piece of paper that gets in his way.
Quite typical actually. Watch the video and pay attension to the other officers doing nothing to stop this attack on her person and this attack on both her RIGHTS and the patients RIGHTS.
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
You and me both, brother! And we aren't the only ones.
I had an early morning meeting today with my ED Nurse Manager and several of our senior nurses. A lot of ED's are doing exactly the same thing this morning. Each of the people at my meeting said that something about this case doesn't pass the smell test. There is something going on here that is not being told to the public.
I showed my NM a copy of my OP from this thread, and she agrees with me. She particularly remarked on two things: one, that leadership was conspicuously absent, and two, that in OUR ED, this was not something that we could ever see happening. We know our local cops, DPS troopers, and Border Patrol, and they know us. We work as a team with them. My nurses are wondering about the behavior of the nurse in the video... they think there is something else going on that she's not telling.
And we are all wondering how the video got released, by whom, and what they were trying to accomplish by releasing it.
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
You and me both, brother! And we aren't the only ones.
I had an early morning meeting today with my ED Nurse Manager and several of our senior nurses. A lot of ED's are doing exactly the same thing this morning. Each of the people at my meeting said that something about this case doesn't pass the smell test. There is something going on here that is not being told to the public.
I showed my NM a copy of my OP from this thread, and she agrees with me. She particularly remarked on two things: one, that leadership was conspicuously absent, and two, that in OUR ED, this was not something that we could ever see happening. We know our local cops, DPS troopers, and Border Patrol, and they know us. We work as a team with them. My nurses are wondering about the behavior of the nurse in the video... they think there is something else going on that she's not telling.
And we are all wondering how the video got released, by whom, and what they were trying to accomplish by releasing it.
Amen Doctor: When something doesn't make sense it is usually because you are missing some information. There is way more to this story
Back to what Trump said and we all agree on, "For every law passed, take two down"
Where the hell did you get that from CNN?
President Trump "said" no such thing.
He did sign an EO that directed Federal agencies that impose "regulations" on businesses to remove two for every single "new" regulation, but he never said anything even close to what you posted about "laws".
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
You and me both, brother! And we aren't the only ones.
I had an early morning meeting today with my ED Nurse Manager and several of our senior nurses. A lot of ED's are doing exactly the same thing this morning. Each of the people at my meeting said that something about this case doesn't pass the smell test. There is something going on here that is not being told to the public.
I showed my NM a copy of my OP from this thread, and she agrees with me. She particularly remarked on two things: one, that leadership was conspicuously absent, and two, that in OUR ED, this was not something that we could ever see happening. We know our local cops, DPS troopers, and Border Patrol, and they know us. We work as a team with them. My nurses are wondering about the behavior of the nurse in the video... they think there is something else going on that she's not telling.
And we are all wondering how the video got released, by whom, and what they were trying to accomplish by releasing it.
Amen Doctor: When something doesn't make sense it is usually because you are missing some information. There is way more to this story
Yeah, blame the nurse for this POS cop violating the constitution and a recent Supreme Court ruling.
Yup, the nurse is the bad guy and the nurse did something wrong and is trying to cover it up. God Damn what a Piece of Sheet you are.
Once upon a time I ordered a toxicology test on a drowning victim who was a passenger in a boat accident. He was not thought to be at fault in causing the accident. The test came back negative for drugs and alcohol. Several years later there was a civil trial concerning this accident. The man's widow and two minor children were making a claim for their loss. Believe it or not the defense attorney had apparently not studied my report or was trying to confuse the jury or whatever and tried to place the blame on the victim claiming he was drinking and did not have a life jacket. Don't you know that widow was glad I had a negative toxicology report and I recorded that the boat had 3 Coast Guard approved life jackets on board. You see, a toxicology test can help an innocent person involved in a accident when lawyers start trying to spread blame around. You never know what evidence will be important or who it might benefit several years later. A lot of evidence not gathered timely will not be available in a short time. If you have never had to gather and protect all the evidence that comes with a big complicated accident scene you probably cannot appreciate the pressure involved in such a situation. A civilian making a legal determination that she is unqualified to make and blocking evidence collection needs to be removed from the scene, which is what happened. That nurse is probably lucky that all she got was a short detention. It probably helps her case that Salt Lake is no longer a Mormon run town and has become quite liberal.
Back to what Trump said and we all agree on, "For every law passed, take two down"
Where the hell did you get that from CNN?
President Trump "said" no such thing.
He did sign an EO that directed Federal agencies that impose "regulations" on businesses to remove two for every single "new" regulation, but he never said anything even close to what you posted about "laws".
At least that you are aware.
When Winston Churchill was asked " Was there a Camelot?" he replied "if there wasn't, there should have been".
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
You and me both, brother! And we aren't the only ones.
I had an early morning meeting today with my ED Nurse Manager and several of our senior nurses. A lot of ED's are doing exactly the same thing this morning. Each of the people at my meeting said that something about this case doesn't pass the smell test. There is something going on here that is not being told to the public. Such as?
I showed my NM a copy of my OP from this thread, and she agrees with me. She particularly remarked on two things: one, that leadership was conspicuously absent, Leadership, as ED level leadership? This is a largest hospital in Utah.and two, that in OUR ED, this was not something that we could ever see happening. We know our local cops, DPS troopers, and Border Patrol, and they know us. We work as a team with them. My nurses are wondering about the behavior of the nurse in the video... they think there is something else going on that she's not telling. This nurse isn't an ED nurse. Thus, doesn't work with LE on a regular basis.
And we are all wondering how the video got released, by whom, and what they were trying to accomplish by releasing it.
The police chief states in the press conference linked below that the nurse and hospital released the video. Further, the nurse is quoted by numerous sources as to her reasoning.
As he stands in the hospital parking lot after the arrest, Payne says to another officer that he wonders how this event will affect an off-duty job transporting patients for an ambulance company. “I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere,” Payne says.
Once upon a time I ordered a toxicology test on a drowning victim who was a passenger in a boat accident. He was not thought to be at fault in causing the accident. The test came back negative for drugs and alcohol. Several years later there was a civil trial concerning this accident. The man's widow and two minor children were making a claim for their loss. Believe it or not the defense attorney had apparently not studied my report or was trying to confuse the jury or whatever and tried to place the blame on the victim claiming he was drinking and did not have a life jacket. Don't you know that widow was glad I had a negative toxicology report and I recorded that the boat had 3 Coast Guard approved life jackets on board. You see, a toxicology test can help an innocent person involved in a accident when lawyers start trying to spread blame around. You never know what evidence will be important or who it might benefit several years later. A lot of evidence not gathered timely will not be available in a short time. If you have never had to gather and protect all the evidence that comes with a big complicated accident scene you probably cannot appreciate the pressure involved in such a situation. A civilian making a legal determination that she is unqualified to make and blocking evidence collection needs to be removed from the scene, which is what happened. That nurse is probably lucky that all she got was a short detention. It probably helps her case that Salt Lake is no longer a Mormon run town and has become quite liberal.
The ends can't justify the means.
Unless you are a bully with a badge and think that badge supersedes the Constituion and your Rights.
As he stands in the hospital parking lot after the arrest, Payne says to another officer that he wonders how this event will affect an off-duty job transporting patients for an ambulance company. “I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere,” Payne says.
As he stands in the hospital parking lot after the arrest, Payne says to another officer that he wonders how this event will affect an off-duty job transporting patients for an ambulance company. “I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere,” Payne says.
Scumbag!
Scumbag with a badge, can't get much lower than that.
What a POS. He needs to decide what he wants to be when he grows up, cop or medic. Talking that kind of trash will get you stuck in the hallway for an hour with a transient. He's not much of a medic if he doesn't know that. SLC PD is going to have to a lot of work here to repair the damage done by one idiot. I hope he loses his medic job too, I would not want to work with a bitter, vengeful partner like that. He needs out of the public service sector since he takes way too much of his human interactions personally.
What a POS. He needs to decide what he wants to be when he grows up, cop or medic. Talking that kind of trash will get you stuck in the hallway for an hour with a transient. He's not much of a medic if he doesn't know that. SLC PD is going to have to a lot of work here to repair the damage done by one idiot. I hope he loses his medic job too, I would not want to work with a bitter, vengeful partner like that. He needs out of the public service sector since he takes way too much of his human interactions personally.
Ya see that's the problem, this was NOT ONE IDIOT.
This was, This Idiot, plus his supervisor, plus all of the other LEO at the scene. In other words he entire department.
What a POS. He needs to decide what he wants to be when he grows up, cop or medic. Talking that kind of trash will get you stuck in the hallway for an hour with a transient. He's not much of a medic if he doesn't know that. SLC PD is going to have to a lot of work here to repair the damage done by one idiot. I hope he loses his medic job too, I would not want to work with a bitter, vengeful partner like that. He needs out of the public service sector since he takes way too much of his human interactions personally.
Ya see that's the problem, this was NOT ONE IDIOT.
This was, This Idiot, plus his supervisor, plus all of the other LEO at the scene. In other words he entire department.
My favorite part was where one of the officers said "We could all loose our careers over this."
So he realized this was potentially a career ending incident, yet still didn't act to change it's trajectory.
Another thing that bothers me while not as much as stomping on Constitutional rights, is how Mr. Bootlegthug handled the nurse. I've seen a number of folks put in cuffs over the years. It makes me wonder if this POS has ever said "You are under arrest so please place your hands behind your back"? It's amazing how well that works with a non-combative person. It's obvious that this thug cop, and his Lt. were trying to cover something about this whole chase in the first place then attempted to escalate this situation to cover an un-warranted blood draw.
It has to be obvious to even a deaf person that Mr. Bootlegthug was doing so while being questioned by his peers who did nothing to stop him even though they knew he was in the wrong.
Another thing that bothers me while not as much as stomping on Constitutional rights, is how Mr. Bootlegthug handled the nurse. I've seen a number of folks put in cuffs over the years. It makes me wonder if this POS has ever said "You are under arrest so please place your hands behind your back"? It's amazing how well that works with a non-combative person. It's obvious that this thug cop, and his Lt. were trying to cover something about this whole chase in the first place then attempted to escalate this situation to cover an un-warranted blood draw.
It has to be obvious to even a deaf person that Mr. Bootlegthug was doing so while being questioned by his peers who did nothing to stop him even though they knew he was in the wrong.
Sad day for our good LEO.
In fact, handcuffs for non-violent arrestees is a recent phenomenon. Prior to the 1960s, it was almost unheard of.
In this case, I believe Detective Payne sought access to Burn Department Head Nurse Wuddel's patient so that he could draw blood. Detective Payne has phlebotomy training and is part of a special 'Blood Draw Unit'. The patient was not under arrest, was unconscious (so couldn't give consent), and no subpoena had been granted for the draw.
Isn't it the case that patients suffering extensive burns are at increased risk of infection/negative outcomes and specific treatment practices are in place to minimize such risks, including restricting access to these patients?
The nurse, Nurse Wuddel, refusing police access to the patient was the Burn Unit Head Nurse. I don't believe the patient in question was still an ED patient, but rather was a burn unit patient. The interaction between Head Nurse Wuddel and Detective Payne took place in the ED as that's where Detective Payne made his request for access to the patient for the purpose of making a blood draw.
While ED staff commonly work with LE, interacting with them daily, Nurse Wuddel, being a burn department nurse didn't share that same experience.
Due to the specific and unique treatment modalities/best practices for extensive burn care, input from burn unit staff(s) might be more appropriate.
The sensationalist media, rushing to be first at press, fail us and themselves by ignoring the details.
What a POS. He needs to decide what he wants to be when he grows up, cop or medic. Talking that kind of trash will get you stuck in the hallway for an hour with a transient. He's not much of a medic if he doesn't know that. SLC PD is going to have to a lot of work here to repair the damage done by one idiot. I hope he loses his medic job too, I would not want to work with a bitter, vengeful partner like that. He needs out of the public service sector since he takes way too much of his human interactions personally.
Ya see that's the problem, this was NOT ONE IDIOT.
This was, This Idiot, plus his supervisor, plus all of the other LEO at the scene. In other words he entire department.
My favorite part was where one of the officers said "We could all loose our careers over this."
So he realized this was potentially a career ending incident, yet still didn't act to change it's trajectory.
Let's say I was suspected to be a victim of a hit & run and I have a CDL. Does LE have the right to enter my home and draw blood without consent, probable cause or warrant? Do they need to knock or can they just barge in and force a draw?
This is a complex issue and there is still more that we don't know than we do know. Trying to decide who was right and wrong here is almost senseless without all of the information. I know this much, I used to have a CDL. I was told up front that part of the requirement of obtaining a CDL was that if I were involved in any accident I'd be tested for drugs and alcohol. I was certainly under the impression that I gave implied consent when I signed up for the CDL. I also have 1st responder training and often assist EMT's at special events. Our training says that we must ask permission to assist a victim who is conscious. If unconscious permission is implied.
As a CDL driver I'd have damn sure wanted the testing done to prove my innocence. If something prevented the test a plaintiff's lawyer or prosecutor could put a lot of doubt in a juries head. The nurse didn't do the truck driver any favors here. Don't know if that is state or federal law. Maybe not even a law, it could be a regulation. I know I had a supervisor walk into my room about twice a year and was told I had 1 hour to report to a DR's office to be drug tested. I had to do it, it was part of the job requirement to keep a CDL. Even when driving my personal car the standards for a DUI are a lot more strict for a CLD driver. You and I can both have the same blood alcohol levels. You'll be let go, and I'd be arrested.
We have 2 sets of laws and guidelines that are conflicting. I'm certain that both the nurse and the arresting cop were sure they were in the right. There is another thread here that points out that the real problem was a lack of leadership from both of the supervisors to resolve the issue.
But I still think the nurse was more wrong than the police officer. She had a right to point out what she thought was the proper procedure. But no where in her job description does it state that she should physically prevent a police officer from doing his job. Even if the cops interpretation of the law was wrong, she crossed a line she had no right to cross. If you witness a crime and the cops that show up arrest the wrong person you don't step in and try to prevent it from happening. You tell it to a judge later. This is what she should have done.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you got something loose upstairs.....she had the policy on her side, the law (written) on her side and the SCOTUS on her side.
Please don't take this the wrong way but you got something loose upstairs.....she had the policy on her side, the law (written) on her side and the SCOTUS on her side.
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly say every search requires a warrant, and courts rule all kinds of ways on searches, and then there are appeals ad infintum. So let us say a cop makes an unlawful search. There will be a day in court and a judge will either allow the evidence or throw it out. I don't believe I would inject myself into instructing officers on a scene about their methods if they weren't illegally physically harming someone. Like I told my nephew who interfered in the arrest of his friend for DUI "You fight the police in court not out on the road". My nephew got slung down on the side of the road and cuffed when all he had to do was sit quiet and mind his business. I retired after thirty years L.E. service. I never believed in treating people rough or disrespectful. Some officers are crooked and overbearing liars and I almost hate them for it. I'm betting a lot of this nurses co-workers know how she is and are getting a good laugh out of what happened. Probably not her first emotional outpouring. Remember I am married to a wonderful nurse and she has my utmost respect for the love and care she shows for her patients, also I respect very much the many medical professionals in my acquaintance. I always worked well with emergency room personnel when we were there investigating or brought in an injured person. This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
I get the idea from this post and the previous you would pitch right in and help the brute cop.
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
You and me both, brother! And we aren't the only ones.
I had an early morning meeting today with my ED Nurse Manager and several of our senior nurses. A lot of ED's are doing exactly the same thing this morning. Each of the people at my meeting said that something about this case doesn't pass the smell test. There is something going on here that is not being told to the public.
I showed my NM a copy of my OP from this thread, and she agrees with me. She particularly remarked on two things: one, that leadership was conspicuously absent, and two, that in OUR ED, this was not something that we could ever see happening. We know our local cops, DPS troopers, and Border Patrol, and they know us. We work as a team with them. My nurses are wondering about the behavior of the nurse in the video... they think there is something else going on that she's not telling.
And we are all wondering how the video got released, by whom, and what they were trying to accomplish by releasing it.
Still trying to defend the indefensible. The nurse didn't make the vedio. The cops did.
#1...... I was certainly under the impression that I gave implied consent when I signed up for the CDL. #2......I also have 1st responder training and often assist EMT's at special events. Our training says that we must ask permission to assist a victim who is conscious. If unconscious permission is implied.
#3......As a CDL driver I'd have damn sure wanted the testing done to prove my innocence.
#1 Refusal gets your CDL revoked, not jail time. #2 You are darn well suppose to assist a victim as an EMT. "Assist" does not mean unlawful search. #3 I'll keep my rights as an individual, thank you very much.
I'm certain that both the nurse and the arresting cop were sure they were in the right.
Did you miss the place where some of the cops told the barbarian he was wrong and one said they might loose their careers over it?
Maybe they were wrong.
"The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that a blood sample cannot be taken without patient consent or a warrant.
Salt Lake City police updated their blood-draw policy "right away" to match that of the hospital, and the department has already re-trained officers on the updated policy, said police spokeswoman Christina Judd."
Salt Lake City police updated their blood-draw policy "right away" to match that of the hospital, and the department has already re-trained officers on the updated policy, said police spokeswoman Christina Judd."
I thought the policy the nurse was showing the cop was a policy the hospital and police dept had jointly agreed to follow beforehand.
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly say every search requires a warrant, and courts rule all kinds of ways on searches, and then there are appeals ad infintum. So let us say a cop makes an unlawful search. There will be a day in court and a judge will either allow the evidence or throw it out. I don't believe I would inject myself into instructing officers on a scene about their methods if they weren't illegally physically harming someone. Like I told my nephew who interfered in the arrest of his friend for DUI "You fight the police in court not out on the road". My nephew got slung down on the side of the road and cuffed when all he had to do was sit quiet and mind his business. I retired after thirty years L.E. service. I never believed in treating people rough or disrespectful. Some officers are crooked and overbearing liars and I almost hate them for it. I'm betting a lot of this nurses co-workers know how she is and are getting a good laugh out of what happened. Probably not her first emotional outpouring. Remember I am married to a wonderful nurse and she has my utmost respect for the love and care she shows for her patients, also I respect very much the many medical professionals in my acquaintance. I always worked well with emergency room personnel when we were there investigating or brought in an injured person. This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
I get the idea from this post and the previous you would pitch right in and help the brute cop.
I don't know. Like everybody else here I wasn't there to see the context of this short video. There is a lot more to this situation than any of us know. Looks to me like two very determined people ran into each other. I do have to wonder why the nurse was so determined to stop this officer from collecting a small sample of blood for evidence in an accident investigation. Looks like a turf battle to me. I can assure you that I don't always side with officers and I might not in this case if I knew the whole story. This brings to mind the time a city police officer threatened to take my minor daughter (who was strapped to a back board in the ER) and me to jail if she would not give her a statement as to who was driving her car in a collision. In this case I as a parent had standing to step in and tell the officer NO we were not making a statement which is exactly what I did. But had the policewoman been stupid enough to place us under arrest I would not have resisted. I jokingly told my daughter (age 16) who was crying not to worry we would get a writ of habeas corpus or something if she was hauled to jail. The officer backed down and I signed my daughter's citation guaranteeing her appearance in court. Another time my same daughter shot the neighbor's chicken killing dog in our front yard and the neighbor swore she saw me do it (I was 100 miles away). My wife said more police showed up than if it were a murder. Again my wife and two daughters refused to make statements to the police, as was their right. I use my rights not to provide evidence when the police show up but I don't physically try to stop them from whatever mistakes they might make. The place to do question legality is a courtroom.
Seems all the facts haven't been released. So at the time of the incident Payne was following the existing SLC police dept. policy?
Yes, he was following the outdated policy. BUT, this guy's explosive temper makes me wonder whether Salt Lake City really needs this guy to have a badge and a pistol. He should never had manhandled the nurse as he did, unless absolutely necessary; he just went off like a bomb!
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly say every search requires a warrant, and courts rule all kinds of ways on searches, and then there are appeals ad infintum. So let us say a cop makes an unlawful search. There will be a day in court and a judge will either allow the evidence or throw it out. I don't believe I would inject myself into instructing officers on a scene about their methods if they weren't illegally physically harming someone. Like I told my nephew who interfered in the arrest of his friend for DUI "You fight the police in court not out on the road". My nephew got slung down on the side of the road and cuffed when all he had to do was sit quiet and mind his business. I retired after thirty years L.E. service. I never believed in treating people rough or disrespectful. Some officers are crooked and overbearing liars and I almost hate them for it. I'm betting a lot of this nurses co-workers know how she is and are getting a good laugh out of what happened. Probably not her first emotional outpouring. Remember I am married to a wonderful nurse and she has my utmost respect for the love and care she shows for her patients, also I respect very much the many medical professionals in my acquaintance. I always worked well with emergency room personnel when we were there investigating or brought in an injured person. This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
I get the idea from this post and the previous you would pitch right in and help the brute cop.
I don't know. Like everybody else here I wasn't there to see the context of this short video. There is a lot more to this situation than any of us know. Looks to me like two very determined people ran into each other. I do have to wonder why the nurse was so determined to stop this officer from collecting a small sample of blood for evidence in an accident investigation. Looks like a turf battle to me. I can assure you that I don't always side with officers and I might not in this case if I knew the whole story. This brings to mind the time a city police officer threatened to take my minor daughter (who was strapped to a back board in the ER) and me to jail if she would not give her a statement as to who was driving her car in a collision. In this case I as a parent had standing to step in and tell the officer NO we were not making a statement which is exactly what I did. But had the policewoman been stupid enough to place us under arrest I would not have resisted. I jokingly told my daughter (age 16) who was crying not to worry we would get a writ of habeas corpus or something if she was hauled to jail. The officer backed down and I signed my daughter's citation guaranteeing her appearance in court. Another time my same daughter shot the neighbor's chicken killing dog in our front yard and the neighbor swore she saw me do it (I was 100 miles away). My wife said more police showed up than if it were a murder. Again my wife and two daughters refused to make statements to the police, as was their right. I use my rights not to provide evidence when the police show up but I don't physically try to stop them from whatever mistakes they might make. The place to do question legality is a courtroom.
" I do have to wonder why the nurse was so determined to stop this officer from collecting a small sample of blood for evidence in an accident investigation"
Perhaps it was because she was following the law and hospital policy. She could be fired for violating the law and policy.
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly say every search requires a warrant, and courts rule all kinds of ways on searches, and then there are appeals ad infintum. So let us say a cop makes an unlawful search. There will be a day in court and a judge will either allow the evidence or throw it out. I don't believe I would inject myself into instructing officers on a scene about their methods if they weren't illegally physically harming someone. Like I told my nephew who interfered in the arrest of his friend for DUI "You fight the police in court not out on the road". My nephew got slung down on the side of the road and cuffed when all he had to do was sit quiet and mind his business. I retired after thirty years L.E. service. I never believed in treating people rough or disrespectful. Some officers are crooked and overbearing liars and I almost hate them for it. I'm betting a lot of this nurses co-workers know how she is and are getting a good laugh out of what happened. Probably not her first emotional outpouring. Remember I am married to a wonderful nurse and she has my utmost respect for the love and care she shows for her patients, also I respect very much the many medical professionals in my acquaintance. I always worked well with emergency room personnel when we were there investigating or brought in an injured person. This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
I get the idea from this post and the previous you would pitch right in and help the brute cop.
I don't know. Like everybody else here I wasn't there to see the context of this short video. There is a lot more to this situation than any of us know. Looks to me like two very determined people ran into each other. I do have to wonder why the nurse was so determined to stop this officer from collecting a small sample of blood for evidence in an accident investigation. Looks like a turf battle to me. I can assure you that I don't always side with officers and I might not in this case if I knew the whole story. This brings to mind the time a city police officer threatened to take my minor daughter (who was strapped to a back board in the ER) and me to jail if she would not give her a statement as to who was driving her car in a collision. In this case I as a parent had standing to step in and tell the officer NO we were not making a statement which is exactly what I did. But had the policewoman been stupid enough to place us under arrest I would not have resisted. I jokingly told my daughter (age 16) who was crying not to worry we would get a writ of habeas corpus or something if she was hauled to jail. The officer backed down and I signed my daughter's citation guaranteeing her appearance in court. Another time my same daughter shot the neighbor's chicken killing dog in our front yard and the neighbor swore she saw me do it (I was 100 miles away). My wife said more police showed up than if it were a murder. Again my wife and two daughters refused to make statements to the police, as was their right. I use my rights not to provide evidence when the police show up but I don't physically try to stop them from whatever mistakes they might make. The place to do question legality is a courtroom.
" I do have to wonder why the nurse was so determined to stop this officer from collecting a small sample of blood for evidence in an accident investigation"
Perhaps it was because she was following the law and hospital policy. She could be fired for violating the law and policy.
Hastings,
What part of NO WARRANT, NO CONSENT, NO ARREST. Do you not get?
Worth making the point that even if the law says you give consent to get tested or you lose your CDL, the patient was not awake to give consent, therefore he wouldn't have even lost his CDL over it unless he suddenly woke up and refused. A case could even be made for him not being able to consent since he'd most certainly be on medication affecting his mental state.
I believe what this all comes down to is not about policy regarding blood draws, but about a LEO losing his cool, if he ever had one, and manhandling a female nurse who appeared only interested in doing the right thing for her patient. The way he went about his "arrest" was truly deplorable and should never be tolerated under the circumstances. It also appears the city mayor and chief of police agreed and are taking steps to make sure such an avoidable event never happens in their city again, and it won't if such easily out of control people are precluded from serving their communities as LEO's. It takes a special kind of person to be a good LEO from the beginning to end of their career. But it is also what the community expects.
I believe what this all comes down to is not about policy regarding blood draws, but about a LEO losing his cool, if he ever had one, and manhandling a female nurse who appeared only interested in doing the right thing for her patient. The way he went about his "arrest" was truly deplorable and should never be tolerated under the circumstances. It also appears the city mayor and chief of police agreed and are taking steps to make sure such an avoidable event never happens in their city again, and it won't if such easily out of control people are precluded from serving their communities as LEO's. It takes a special kind of person to be a good LEO from the beginning to end of their career. But it is also what the community expects.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but we actually don't know if the Mayor and the Chief agree of not.
Both are politicians and are only interested in two things, covering their ass and staying in power. Politicians are well known for "never let a good crisis go to waist", they will stick their finger up and go which ever way the wind blows. It that wind means throwing a friend, a colleague or a cop under the bus to get what they want, they will.
My guess is that both are just telling the public what they want to hear, whether they agree with it or not.
Could be and I'm sure there is always some of that going on, but they did get in front of this quickly and are acting so it won't happen again. I agree a lot of pols just talk but these folks are doing something.
Doc: I believe this incident occurred on 26 July. In an interview, Nurse Wubbels was asked why the video was released. She stated she and the hospital released the video because nothing was being done. Do you believe that Officer Payne would have been removed from the blood draw program or an internal investigation initiated or training of officers concerning the latest supreme court decisions regarding the 4th Amendment or training on the blood draw procedures agreed upon by the Police Department and hospital would have occurred had this incident not received public scrutiny? I would be interested in your Nurse Managers reaction to the body cam audio in the parking lot where Officer Payne threatens “I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere” . Doc, I believe you have stated you are associated with a SWAT team in a medical capacity. Since you are familiar with officers on a professional basis, do you honestly want an officer who has exhibited the behavior Officer Payne has displayed walking around your community with a gun and a badge?
Could be and I'm sure there is always some of that going on, but they did get in front of this quickly and are acting so it won't happen again. I agree a lot of pols just talk but these folks are doing something.
I disagree, this happened back in July and we are just hearing about it now, I think they were hoping this would just disappear and never have been brought to the light of day.
University Hospital now has a policy that police officers will deal with administrators when they have any business in the hospital. It would be interesting to see any documentation related to her initial complaint to the PD.
The campfire loves a good cop bashing thread. Post up a mechanic on video ripping people off and see how many responses you get. 😀
Mechanics don't carry badges and guns and can't hurt you with impunity. You can take them to small claims court. Try that with Officer Payne. You will be harassed as long as you live in "his" town.
Seems since this video has gone viral the police department has made their policies in line with the hospitals and put two officers On administrative leave, whatever that entails
The campfire loves a good cop bashing thread. Post up a mechanic on video ripping people off and see how many responses you get. 😀
Mechanics don't carry badges and guns and can't hurt you with impunity. You can take them to small claims court. Try that with Officer Payne. You will be harassed as long as you live in "his" town.
You're right. Mechanics are a fact of life for modern vehicles. Fact of life, they have you bent over the barrel. And they as a group tend to lie, cheat, and milk you dry because in our mobile modern society you can't do jack $hit without a reliable vehicle. They know that. They also know you can't just take a sunday afternoon and fix it yourself.
If it were normal for cops to misbehave, it wouldn't draw comment. The good news is that it is unusual enough that we pay attention to it. If it gets a spotlight shined on it, the bad cops get kicked out, and the good cops celebrate along with the rest of us.
There are rumors that this particular officer has a history vs. females that stand up to him.
I still can't believe that hospital security and University Police just stood there with their teeth in their mouths, doing nothing. The one guy I know that works hospital security is incredibly protective of "his people", and would not have tolerated that kind of action. He has faced a very similar situation, and kicked the offending officers out of the ER. (You'd all like him. Great man.)
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly say every search requires a warrant, and courts rule all kinds of ways on searches, and then there are appeals ad infintum. So let us say a cop makes an unlawful search. There will be a day in court and a judge will either allow the evidence or throw it out. I don't believe I would inject myself into instructing officers on a scene about their methods if they weren't illegally physically harming someone. Like I told my nephew who interfered in the arrest of his friend for DUI "You fight the police in court not out on the road". My nephew got slung down on the side of the road and cuffed when all he had to do was sit quiet and mind his business. I retired after thirty years L.E. service. I never believed in treating people rough or disrespectful. Some officers are crooked and overbearing liars and I almost hate them for it. I'm betting a lot of this nurses co-workers know how she is and are getting a good laugh out of what happened. Probably not her first emotional outpouring. Remember I am married to a wonderful nurse and she has my utmost respect for the love and care she shows for her patients, also I respect very much the many medical professionals in my acquaintance. I always worked well with emergency room personnel when we were there investigating or brought in an injured person. This whole deal in Salt Lake seems crazy and seems to have been unnecessarily started by this nurse.
I get the idea from this post and the previous you would pitch right in and help the brute cop.
I don't know. Like everybody else here I wasn't there to see the context of this short video. There is a lot more to this situation than any of us know. Looks to me like two very determined people ran into each other. I do have to wonder why the nurse was so determined to stop this officer from collecting a small sample of blood for evidence in an accident investigation. Looks like a turf battle to me. I can assure you that I don't always side with officers and I might not in this case if I knew the whole story. This brings to mind the time a city police officer threatened to take my minor daughter (who was strapped to a back board in the ER) and me to jail if she would not give her a statement as to who was driving her car in a collision. In this case I as a parent had standing to step in and tell the officer NO we were not making a statement which is exactly what I did. But had the policewoman been stupid enough to place us under arrest I would not have resisted. I jokingly told my daughter (age 16) who was crying not to worry we would get a writ of habeas corpus or something if she was hauled to jail. The officer backed down and I signed my daughter's citation guaranteeing her appearance in court. Another time my same daughter shot the neighbor's chicken killing dog in our front yard and the neighbor swore she saw me do it (I was 100 miles away). My wife said more police showed up than if it were a murder. Again my wife and two daughters refused to make statements to the police, as was their right. I use my rights not to provide evidence when the police show up but I don't physically try to stop them from whatever mistakes they might make. The place to do question legality is a courtroom.
" I do have to wonder why the nurse was so determined to stop this officer from collecting a small sample of blood for evidence in an accident investigation"
Perhaps it was because she was following the law and hospital policy. She could be fired for violating the law and policy.
Hastings,
What part of NO WARRANT, NO CONSENT, NO ARREST. Do you not get?
This guy Hastings is too obtuse and ignorant of reality that he must be a sock puppet
This guy Hastings is too obtuse and ignorant of reality that he must be a sock puppet
I had the displease of spending a summer in Mississippi.
The cops I met down there were every bit as stupid as the character, real or sock puppet, we know as Hastings. So, a Louisiana cop as stupid as this guy doesn't seem like much of a stretch .
[quote=m_stevenson]... So, a Louisiana cop as stupid as this guy doesn't seem like much of a stretch .
I used to train cops in Louisiana. It's not much of a stretch in some parts of that state.
The same could be said for just about any state, but there seems to be something in the water in some places that draws them together.
Which causes me to ponder; Is there a "stupid" pheromone which attracts other stupid? Maybe something we can get a federal grant to study. Might involve a road trip or three to places which distill adult beverages since alcohol seems to either induce stupidity or invoke it. Anyone else up for a road trip?
The nurse was protecting the patient and her azz..With the new SCOTUS decision on blood draws any lawyer would be coming back hard on the hospital if the trucker patient had decided to sue.
[quote=m_stevenson]... So, a Louisiana cop as stupid as this guy doesn't seem like much of a stretch .
I used to train cops in Louisiana. It's not much of a stretch in some parts of that state.
The same could be said for just about any state, but there seems to be something in the water in some places that draws them together.
Which causes me to ponder; Is there a "stupid" pheromone which attracts other stupid? Maybe something we can get a federal grant to study. Might involve a road trip or three to places which distill adult beverages since alcohol seems to either induce stupidity or invoke it. Anyone else up for a road trip?
Ed
I'm in, baring one point of clarification. In this context aren't 'induce' and 'invoke' one and the same?
[quote=m_stevenson]... So, a Louisiana cop as stupid as this guy doesn't seem like much of a stretch .
I used to train cops in Louisiana. It's not much of a stretch in some parts of that state.
The same could be said for just about any state, but there seems to be something in the water in some places that draws them together.
Which causes me to ponder; Is there a "stupid" pheromone which attracts other stupid? Maybe something we can get a federal grant to study. Might involve a road trip or three to places which distill adult beverages since alcohol seems to either induce stupidity or invoke it. Anyone else up for a road trip?
Ed
I'm in, baring one point of clarification. In this context aren't 'induce' and 'invoke' one and the same?
Ed,
I'm definitely up for a beer with you sometime, just not in Florida this weekend!
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
You and me both, brother! And we aren't the only ones.
I had an early morning meeting today with my ED Nurse Manager and several of our senior nurses. A lot of ED's are doing exactly the same thing this morning. Each of the people at my meeting said that something about this case doesn't pass the smell test. There is something going on here that is not being told to the public.
I showed my NM a copy of my OP from this thread, and she agrees with me. She particularly remarked on two things: one, that leadership was conspicuously absent, and two, that in OUR ED, this was not something that we could ever see happening. We know our local cops, DPS troopers, and Border Patrol, and they know us. We work as a team with them. My nurses are wondering about the behavior of the nurse in the video... they think there is something else going on that she's not telling.
And we are all wondering how the video got released, by whom, and what they were trying to accomplish by releasing it.
Amen Doctor: When something doesn't make sense it is usually because you are missing some information. There is way more to this story
Something bothers me about this whole thing... keeps nagging at me.
You and me both, brother! And we aren't the only ones.
I had an early morning meeting today with my ED Nurse Manager and several of our senior nurses. A lot of ED's are doing exactly the same thing this morning. Each of the people at my meeting said that something about this case doesn't pass the smell test. There is something going on here that is not being told to the public.
I showed my NM a copy of my OP from this thread, and she agrees with me. She particularly remarked on two things: one, that leadership was conspicuously absent, and two, that in OUR ED, this was not something that we could ever see happening. We know our local cops, DPS troopers, and Border Patrol, and they know us. We work as a team with them. My nurses are wondering about the behavior of the nurse in the video... they think there is something else going on that she's not telling.
And we are all wondering how the video got released, by whom, and what they were trying to accomplish by releasing it.
Amen Doctor: When something doesn't make sense it is usually because you are missing some information. There is way more to this story
Yeah, that's surely it.
There MUST be more to this story.
On other forums I have seen a bunch of stuff about the cop being a strong-woman hater...
The campfire loves a good cop bashing thread. Post up a mechanic on video ripping people off and see how many responses you get. 😀
a mechanic...lol... how about this hypothetical....
Legally armed citizens enter a police station demanding the unlawful release of a person in custody, when police refuse to comply said citizens man handle/detain a cop depriving him of his liberty and capacity for duty
level of assistance accorded to such an officer by other officers present, would be in stark difference to the lack of assistance accorded the hospital nurse.
Well officer Payne was fired from his second job as an ambulance driver. Now he just needs to be fired as a cop.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/utah-cop-arrested-nurse-over-blood-draw-fired-002526060.html Utah cop who arrested nurse over blood draw fired from second job Reuters September 5, 2017 (Reuters) - A Utah police detective accused of assaulting and unlawfully arresting a nurse after she refused to let him take a blood sample from an unconscious patient without a warrant was fired on Tuesday from his second job as a part-time ambulance driver.
Jeff Payne was terminated from his job at Gold Cross Ambulance service over comments he made while taking nurse Alex Wubbels into custody on July 26 which were captured on his body camera, Gold Cross president Mike Moffitt told Reuters.
The comments suggested that Payne would bring transients to University of Utah Hospital, where Wubbels worked, while transporting "good" patients to another facility, Moffitt said.
"Those remarks are just not reflective of our company's philosophy and the service we provide and because of that behavior we felt we had to separate ways," Moffitt said. "His comments reflected poorly on the company and violated several company policies."
Reuters was not able to contact representatives for Payne, who has been placed on administrative leave by the Salt Lake City Police Department over the incident, which made headlines when Wubbels' lawyers released the body camera footage.
The footage shows Payne roughly handcuffing Wubbels and shoving her into an unmarked squad car after she refused to let him draw blood from an unconscious man, who had been badly injured when he crashed at the end of a police chase.
Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Police Chief Mike Brown have since apologized to Wubbels and District Attorney Sam Gilled for a criminal investigation into the incident. (Reporting by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Sandra Maler)
[quote=APDDSN0864]...I'm in, baring one point of clarification. In this context aren't 'induce' and 'invoke' one and the same?
Subtle difference; In this case, "induce" meant that it wasn't already present in some form or level, "invoke" meant it was already present and just had to be called into service.
I'm definitely up for a beer with you sometime, just not in Florida this weekend!
AGREED! I'll buy, but my beverage has to be non-alcoholic. Doc's orders; "You can have a drink or you can have your health." Drinks are easy to come by. Health....not so easy.
As to Florida, I'm up for a road trip to go rescue a couple of 'Fire members or help with cleanup if needed. Other than that, I haven't lost a damned thing east of the Mississippi River.
Well officer Payne was fired from his second job as an ambulance driver. Now he just needs to be fired as a cop.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/utah-cop-arrested-nurse-over-blood-draw-fired-002526060.html Utah cop who arrested nurse over blood draw fired from second job Reuters September 5, 2017 (Reuters) - A Utah police detective accused of assaulting and unlawfully arresting a nurse after she refused to let him take a blood sample from an unconscious patient without a warrant was fired on Tuesday from his second job as a part-time ambulance driver.
Jeff Payne was terminated from his job at Gold Cross Ambulance service over comments he made while taking nurse Alex Wubbels into custody on July 26 which were captured on his body camera, Gold Cross president Mike Moffitt told Reuters.
The comments suggested that Payne would bring transients to University of Utah Hospital, where Wubbels worked, while transporting "good" patients to another facility, Moffitt said.
"Those remarks are just not reflective of our company's philosophy and the service we provide and because of that behavior we felt we had to separate ways," Moffitt said. "His comments reflected poorly on the company and violated several company policies."
Reuters was not able to contact representatives for Payne, who has been placed on administrative leave by the Salt Lake City Police Department over the incident, which made headlines when Wubbels' lawyers released the body camera footage.
The footage shows Payne roughly handcuffing Wubbels and shoving her into an unmarked squad car after she refused to let him draw blood from an unconscious man, who had been badly injured when he crashed at the end of a police chase.
Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Police Chief Mike Brown have since apologized to Wubbels and District Attorney Sam Gilled for a criminal investigation into the incident. (Reporting by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Sandra Maler)
The firing and apology run a little thin as it took nearly a month and a half to do anything about it. Color me unimpressed.
Not everybody is cut out for a career in LE. It's a revolving door. Some don't want to help people, some don't want to hurt people and some just can't handle the ankle biters like you. Got any suggestions?
![[Linked Image]](https://s20.postimg.org/gpgkcqesd/IMG_4251.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://dakiniland.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/deliverance-banjo-boy-e1296452279364.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://a65.tinypic.com/2qcnq83.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://a64.tinypic.com/2wmjhw3.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://a68.tinypic.com/1zocakk.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://a67.tinypic.com/2wnnyg8.jpg)
