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

Along the lines of the leadership issue

a little background about the environment

Current SLC mayor Ms. Bukispi is a lesbian and very active in the LGBT (that movement). Previous staff was asked to resign an then she hires back etc. (yes I know not uncommon)

The "progressive" movement in the SLC area has moved large portions of business to the south end of the valley. ex. Silicon Slopes, NSA. This has significantly reduced SLC tax base as most of the labor force commutes in.

Former SLC sheriff, Winder steps down moves to Moab. New sheriff Ms. Garcia is close friends with mayor, and yet to receive/earn "leadership respect" from leo community.

Nurse publicly accepted mayors apology. This limits her avenues.

Thanks for the post, a little more clarity to the situation.

However, LEO should always defer to the "innocent until proven guilty" parameters within the constitution. Regardless of what the admin. people pushed, or what laws pertain to CDL requirements, the cop on site had the option/time to get a warrant, its not like the truck driver was going anywhere. One of the main concepts within the constitution is the idea of the creation of a "victim", and not the welfare rat, BLM "victim". I'm talking about a person who has been damaged, either physically, financially etc.

In this instance, the nurse caused no victim by refusing the collection of blood, regardless of what the law states. The police officer on the other hand caused a victim by arresting the nurse, denying her freedom. He arrested her based on an administrative conflict, not some charge of damaging/creating a victim. Here in lies one the biggest problems that has created a total misunderstanding within our population as to what rights are, why the constitution was written the way it was, and how law enforcement/gov. takes power away from the people.

Off topic but just to be clear

Dillion Taylor was white, Officer Cruz was non-white.

Well said Doc. I'm glad I retired shortly after HIPAA went into effect. There was general confusion, at that time, as to what the medical community was or was not allowed to do by HIPAA. Seems the confusion has yet to clear up.

When was the last time you filled out a search warrant or invoked implied consent ?? It's not everything, just damned near it. The State legislature writes and states the Code, the LEO's enforce it, as per the intent of the Legislature to the best of their ability. Judges are supposed to respect that process of the elected officials (representatives of the people) and the Constitution, just like the Officers. The State Code, the accident and the unconscious condition is the PC. This only leave the timeliness. This officer failed to recognize the human factor (untrained nurse) and blew the "first impressions are important" and it turned ugly. The leadership (both sides) and the attorneys of the hospital failed to recognize the law and the timeliness of the process. You see the end result. You can bet things will change in the near future. Good or bad, it will change.
kwg

Bosses see Rules/Regulations as the final word, leaders see them as general guidelines. Bosses don't know WTF to do if it isn't in a Rule/Regulation manual, leaders do.

Is it legal for a cop to be drawing blood in a hospital?

Seems like that's beyond his scope of evidence gathering.

And it's just that simple.

Unfortunately, leadership skills are about as common as common sense.

Obviously you didn't read the [bleep] Original Post. Impressive.

He was trained as a forensic phlebotomist

Doc, you are exactly correct that leadership failed on all sides. Some calm voices and reasoned discourse were needed and were not present.

However, implied consent has not been the law in Utah since 2007, and the Supreme Court has recently ruled that a warrant or consent is required for a blood search. No consent was possible since the victim of the crash was unconscious.

There was nothing done wrong by the cop. The driver had already consented to blood draw by action of having his CDL. The cop did his job--that's all.

The nurse did not do her job, because none of that was her job to do anyway. The cop might have been a jerk, but the nurse had/has no standing in this case.

Yur right! FOOk that GD piece a' paper

...If in doubt? ..Bust EM'!

Probably not.

Implied consent went the way of the dodo bird in 2007 in Utah. And we have have a recent Supreme Court ruling that turns a lot of the old laws on their head. A blood draw now requires consent (not possible if you're unconscious) or a warrant.

I would posit that the nurse was the only one actually doing her job.

As Doc stated, leadership was absent all around.

The unconscious crash victim was in the care of the hospital, and unable to act for himself. If the hospital had allowed an illegal blood draw, the victim could sue the hospital. In light of recent changes to the laws governing blood draws, it seems likely to me that the draw would have been illegal.

How would the nurse back down? Do you think that belligerent cop would let her back away?

So does a hospital's internal "policy" supercede a state law?

Well dumbfuq, ya just don't walk into a hospital and perform medical proceedures trained or otherwise.

Don't you have some pre-teenage boys to go suck off or something?

If that policy is consistent with Supreme Court Precedence, yes, it does.

I agree this was a failure of leadership. More on the part of the cop than the nurse. Seems like many are not reading the whole story or paying attention to things that have happened. Say what you want about the nurse, but the SC has ruled that you need a consent or a warrant for the blood draw. She had the policy of her organization and called her supervisor. Seems she knew exactly what to do. the cop on the other hand was pissed she didn't just bow down to him. He obviously didn't know what to do, so he just resorted to police state tactics. His fellows cops are heard saying, "this won't stick". "Why don't we just get a warrant?" He should have listened.

According to the story, they didn't suspect the driver was impaired. They wanted a blood sample to "protect the driver". The link to the sesame street version of CDL testing says a person "can" be tested. You need a "must", "shall", "will", "required" or some other similar word to make it stick. In the end, the cop is placed on leave. The nurse was released and not charged. City leadership apologized to the nurse. This kind of thing happens when the city leadership knows its in a legal bind.

Why would you not draw it in a hospital?