Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Cops beating up Nurse protecting a patient's rights

And if she doesn't sue the [bleep] out of them, she's a fool.

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.

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.

Judges are the problem... Cops are going to be cops and push till they are forced to stop.

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.

A cop acting like an entitled douche that can't understand the word "no" ain't nothing new.

Just shrug, go along with it, and call a lawyer when ya get out.

Both my daughters are nurses, if that so-called Detective had arrested my daughters I would have drawn blood from him without the needle.

Yep.

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

Victim or not, Cop was tryin to get some evidence to pad the "drunk driving" statistics.

Sober driver rear-ends and kills a "drunk" driver, that's an "alcohol related fatality".

See how easy that is?

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.

Chris

And what evidence would that be?

That the guy had blood in him before he died?

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.

I explained in my first post...

Chris

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.

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.

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 !".