Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Nurse Arrest: A Failure in Leadership

I disagree, they could have gotten a warrant but the draw would no longer be timely. If there was alcohol in the blood, it would have been greatly diminished or gone by the time the warrant would have been signed. Since no one from the medical side was involved in the actual requesting and receiving the warrant, there was NO guarantee it would have been honored.

The answer could have been asking the County Medical Examiner to do the bold draw from their supplies, in effect taking the hospital out of the equation. But, that's a County Attorney SOP and not the LEO's or the hospitals decision.

My guess is there will be a lot of SOP's changed after this incident on both sides.
kwg

The nurse was placed in a no-win situation. One authority figure was telling her to do one thing. (her boss) Another authority figure was telling her to do something else. (the cop)

She was presented with 2 choices. Lose her job or go to jail.

The cop needs another vocation for his unwillingness to confront the nurses supervisor instead of the nurse.

Great post. Both players called for supervisory assistance; leadership and supervision was absent when needed.
Bob

Please post the relavent Idaho statue that says that signing their CDL authorizes LE to draw blood 24/7 without PC.

Why would Idaho have anything to do with a federal statute?

I think it would be wonderful if you would look up the Idaho statute. But since this case happened in Utah, I'm not sure it's relevant.

In any case, this isn't a state law issue. CDL's are under Federal jurisdiction. You can read the Sesame Street version here:
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulatio...are-required-and-when-does-testing-occur

Thanks, 700!

There are others who do not agree with you, though...

Well said, Dutch. I have a term for those types: corporate pukes. I realize that's not a strong enough term for what I really think of them, though...

I believe the fed regs only state you have to comply with local statutes re testing.

Any person who holds a CLP or CDL or is required to hold a CLP or CDL is considered to have consented to such testing as is required by any State or jurisdiction in the enforcement of item (4) of Table 1 to § 383.51 of this subpart and § 392.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. Consent is implied by driving a commercial motor vehicle.

What are utahs laws regarding such? They require any accident victim to submit to a search?

There is a 7-1 Supreme Court decision directly on point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birchfield_v._North_Dakota

All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that both breath tests and blood tests constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that requiring breath tests is constitutional without a search warrant, however, requiring more intrusive blood tests involving piercing the skin is not, as the goal of traffic safety can be obtained by less invasive means.[1] Specifically addressing implied consent laws, the court in the Birchfield opinion stated that while their "prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws" that "there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads" and "that motorists could be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are 'reasonable' in that they have a 'nexus' to the privilege of driving". [2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

What it means is that Implied Consent does not include blood withdrawal, pure plain and simple.

Spin it anyway you wish, but the Supreme Law of the Land says drawing blood without a warrant or "actual" not "implied" consent is a violation if the 4th amendment

The Federal statue requires the EMPLOYER to send the driver involved in a significant accident to be drug tested, and refusal is deemed a violation. Violation results in automatic suspension of your CDL. Cops have NADA to do with it. In any case, local cops must be certified before they can enforce FMCSA regulations. I very much doubt this local copper was. Every employer of a USDOT regulated company is required to undergo a 2 hr training program that outlines these rules.

I have no clue what the local and state statues are in this case, but they are the only ones that apply HERE.

Great post, Doc. Bossiness vs leadership: the best descriptive terms I’ve heard on this topic.

We meet bossy people who abuse their power once in awhile in any position that gives them power to tell others that they must do something or can't do something. I recall the gloating joy in a ferry worker's face who refused to let me get on a ferry because they had just instituted a new half hour rule for boarding. I suspect that bossy people gravitate to such positions of usually minor authority but perhaps the position promotes the trait. I wish that there was some way to weed out applicants with this trait, and fire those who develop it. It has zero to do with safety or doing whatever job they do. One abusive, lying jerk TSA officer in Philadelphia tends to make me forget dozens of other good ones and a few in Seattle who went out of their way to serve my ailing wife as well as protect.

Something the nurse pointed out was that the policy she showed the cops was the protocol that (she understood) the police had worked out with the hospital and had agreed to follow.

The cop looked like his default next step is to ratchet up the conflict when anyone disagrees with him.

A lot of good points made.

My take is that while the hospital administrator is not lawyer, the nurse had everything needed to show the responding officers that the ED was on their game. She calmly produced documentation and clearly articulated the hospital's responsibility.

The tenured detective quickly turned his wrath onto the nurse, knowing that his case was shaky at best (no probable cause for a warrant) and upon consent from his boss crossed the line arresting someone that was helping to find a solution. There were no exigent circumstances with the truck diver fleeing the hospital

After most of the drama was over the detective told another officer that he would be bringing all of the homeless patients to that hospital via his night job as an ambulance driver.

Detective and his supervisor phuqued up big time and need to suffer the consequences.

Wasn't part of this issue was the fact the driver was unconscious. I know this changes some issues but it does not relieve the timeliness issue. In other words, some time limits had to be met. I agree, the nurse supervisor needed to be in the room and if necessary, the officers supervisor needed to be there as well. Two bullheaded people meeting in the same room with no way out created this $hitstorm.

There is no such thing as a quick search warrant and there is no such thing as a judge who is close and handy to sign one. This means that the supervisors need to know what the rules are and be able to recite them at a moments notice. If not, why are they a supervisor ??

kwg

Bullschidt...

I know for a fact that many times my wife would draw a legal etoh at the same time she would draw the hospital's blood sample. And this was while working grave shift at 0300.

Steve (and Dutch)... I ain't a lawyer, and neither are you, nor were the supervisors in this case. (I am a registered CDL Medical Examiner, though, for what that's worth in this discussion... my notes say the CDL holder's consent to a blood draw is not implied, but explicit. Let the lawyers figure that out.)

Regardless: the fact that a bunch of us here can get into a quarrel about whether this was right or wrong underscores my central point in the OP: that when the issues aren't clear and/or are in contention, it's the responsibility of the LEADERS to cut through the rancor and arguments and arrive at a solution that doesn't require people doing foolish things at the scene.

Doesn't matter about timeliness, it only matters what the law says and the law as per the United States Supreme court says that no blood without PC, an arrest, a warrant, or actual consent.

They also ruled that Implied Consent does not include drawing blood, period.

<sigh> Yes, indeed. Getting bogged down in minutiae, wandering off-topic, and thread-hijacking are SOP on the 24HCF these days. Sometimes I wonder why I bother...