http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/31/utah-nurse-arrested-after-complying-with-hospital-policy-that-bars-taking-blood-from-unconscious-victim/

The cop is a complete fucking asshole! Probably a bishop too...

What a piece of excrement the officer is. What policy would ever lead anyone to believe that "implied consent" could exist with an unconscious patient. He sounds like the type of idiot who would think an unconscious woman was implying consent for another act. How could the department heads take him off blood-drawing duty but not off patrol duty? Did they not see the video of the arrest? They're all barbarians.

I hope the nurse gets very rich.

Implied consent ONLY applies to life saving measures for a pt UNLESS the pt clearly has a legal document such as a DNR (Do Not Resesitate ).

Each state is different on what samples can be taken in cases of suspected DUI, however, most states will present to a suspect that they take this test or they will be arrested.

What this cop did was aggressive and uncalled for.

The nurse was following her EMPLOYER's policy AND the current law to the best of her ability. No wonder she was shocked. The cop did not have a warrant for the suspect. It would have been EASY to get one withOUT the patients knowledge.

Once the officer had that warrant..it would have been a simple and clean process. A few signatures and a transfer of the specimen. Instead, the typical male bully decided to "teach a lesson" to nurse. She was never arrested and was released shortly after.

I hope she sues the jerk.

RMM

I sense ... a department apology, dropping / refusal to file charges, and a lawsuit in the near future...

Oh how I'd LOVE to serve on That Jury =)

So many layers of problems in this.

Nurse consulting written policy of hospital (written in agreement with the police department).

Nurse calling supervisor to clarify what she should or should not do.

It isn't clear to me if the nurse said that she wouldn't draw the blood, or if she actively was blocking the police officer from drawing the blood.

Officer is ignoring the hospital/police agreed policy.

Officer did not call his superiors for advice.

Officer did not just get a warrant. (From the arrest, it is obviously daytime outside).

Officer claiming implied consent. Implied consent usually applies to things that would benefit the patient (like CPR or other acute interventions to save his life when he is otherwise unconscious). It is hard to imagine how this legal blood draw benefits him in any way.

Office is claiming existent circumstances, but the patient doesn't seem to be in any danger of going anywhere.

The origin of this tragedy starts with a police chase where the car being pursued crashed into the victim, resulting in his horrific injuries. Obviously the involved police agencies may have some liability for this patient's injuries. It isn't hard to imagine that the legal blood test was requested to help the involved agencies defend themselves in the upcoming lawsuit.

This whole thing was videotaped from up close. It is hard to imagine that the officer did not know that he was being taped.

What a mess.

In a case where alcohol is suspected as a contributing cause, a warrant may not be necessary.

http://www.larryformanlaw.com/blog/can-the-police-take-my-blood-against-my-will


"[w]hen a person refuses to voluntarily submit to a chemical test for BAC, if time permits, a warrant should be obtained. However, if an officer cannot get a search warrant in a reasonable time, the officer should explain in great detail why a search warrant could not be obtained. The officer must be able to articulate what factors were present that created an exigent circumstance. It is important to note that the exigent circumstance cannot be a result of the officer’s conduct."

For the alcohol test, the exigent circumstance could have been called for because the *alcohol* dissipates. The alcohol, not the person gets away!

As I read the article, if the police officer made his case for exigent circumstances, he would be right to take the blood. I do not see in the article where he was able to "explain in great detail why a search warrant could not be obtained"

These questions are answered on a state by state basis. The guy you site is from Kentucky and the laws in Utah may be different.

The written hospital policy which was apparently formulated with cooperation from the police sets out the conditions for obtaining a legal blood draw.

This policy may speak only to hospital staff drawing the blood. Police phlebotomists may be able to the draw blood under more circumstances, but that isn't clear.

The part about Kentucky was about Kentucky going FURTHER than the law I was talking about. The law I am talking about is FEDERAL law that applies to all states thanks to a SCOTUS case.

I have read the page in more depth. You are correct that Kentucky has limited legal blood draws by police more than the SCOTUS ruling from the 1960's sets out.

I do not know if Utah has also limited the circumstances where police can obtain a warrantless legal blood draw without the consent of the patient beyond the 1960's SCOTUS ruling.

Each state can provide more protections to their citizens than federal law or SCOTUS rulings.

It would be strange that the article would note one place where the state was more strict than the federal law, but not other states IF other states actually exceed federal law.

Innuendo to attempt to imply that Utah has gone further is not very compelling.

He practices in Kentucky. It would make sense that he would answer the question generally, and then give a more precise answer for people who might him to represent them in the state that he practices, Kentucky.

I will make no further comments in this thread.

Still you have no idea if there is anything in Utah that goes further than the SCOTUS ruling.

Speculating that there is more is just that. speculation and not a basis for making judgement.

It should also be noted that the Kentucky law adds the requirement that there be injury or death. Even if Utah had this same requirement, there was injury that would have met this requirement.

Does this help clear anything up?

"Under Utah law, a person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given her consent to chemical testing of her blood, breath, and urine. In determining if the chemical testing is valid or not, the prosecutor must show that the original stop was valid. There must be a showing of reasonable cause that the motorist committed some traffic violation or was involved in some accident.
...
"However, you are not required to give a sample. As a general rule, you are your own destiny; you can consent or not consent to giving a sample. The police cannot use force or coercion to obtain the sample. There are two exceptions to this general rule.
...
"The second exception is being unconscious. Under Utah law, the implied consent law applies even to unconscious people. You still gave your consent to taking the test. Thus, the police can take your breath/blood/urine/saliva while you’re asleep."

http://dui.legalhelp.org/utah/chemical-test-for-dui-in-utah/

lurking in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the prosecutor must show that the original
> stop was valid. There must be a showing of
> reasonable cause that the motorist committed some
> traffic violation or was involved in some
> accident.

Hmm. There was involvement in an accident here, but the person in question appears to have been merely a victim, not a cause. There was no "stop," there was no traffic violation.

> "The second exception is being unconscious. Under
> Utah law, the implied consent law applies even to
> unconscious people. You still gave your consent to
> taking the test. Thus, the police can take your
> breath/blood/urine/saliva while you’re asleep."

Maybe the police can, but the nurse was following the procedure agreed to by both the police and her hospital's admins for her hospital, which says the nurse *can't* take them.
And she was manhandled and arrested in a violent way for it.

The cop here simply lost his temper. He didn't get what he wanted, so he threw a tantrum and violently assaulted a nurse who was following procedure.

He's toast. And he should be. A cop that throws tantrums and gets violent has no business on the job.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2017 03:02PM by ificouldhietokolob.

The caption under photos says the nurse is "explaining to police that SHE couldn't draw a blood sample." [my emphasis]

Another quote down the page says the nurse "would not ALLOW the draw." [my emphasis]

Additionally: the officer "asked to take a blood sample" (not "asked THE NURSE to take a blood sample"). [my emphasis]

Also, it's indicated that the officer himself is in a "blood-draw program — where officers are trained as phlebotomists so they can get blood samples ...."


Whatever the case, I CAN say that I absolutely HATE interacting with cops for ANY reason. Too many "petty dictators."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2017 04:44PM by lurking in.

According to the nurse's lawyer, SCOTUS said in 2016 that you can do breathalizer without consent, not blood. There is no implied consent in Utah since 2006.

The officer does the draw, but the hospital won't allow it to be done on a hospital patient unless one of three conditions are met. None of the conditions were met, so the hospital doesn't allow the police to take blood from one of their patients.

What was so hard for the cop to understand about that. It's the police's own policy being read back by a nurse.

Arresting her was crazy.

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

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

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "When a person refuses to voluntarily submit to a
> chemical test for BAC...

So that doesn't apply in this situation.
At all.
This person didn't refuse to do anything.
This person was unconscious.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2017 02:33AM by kathleen.

The patient was hurt due to a police chase. The police could be liable. If only they can make a criminal of the victim... Blocked by a nurse? Lock her up.

This sums it up perfectly. An ill-advised police chase with tragic consequences for an innocent bystander/driver. Cops who know they're in mighty deep -- lawsuit, perhaps exposure to punitive damages for such poor judgment in handling the chase, possible job loss with ruined careers and lives.

But, hey, this is Utah -- if the police can show alcohol (any amount) in the victim's blood - or even lingering THC from a joint smoked a week or more ago, happy day! Public sentiment will immediately turn against the victim and, even better, the victim can be threatened with arrest for DUI so the matter will never see the light of day.

Only problem -- a pesky female getting in the way of potential exoneration for the male police officers.

Answer-- get her out of the way.

So glad the nurse has hired counsel.

In addition to every other objectionable police action noted in this thread, is the little tidbit that any evidence collected could have been ruled inadmissible in court. Insisting on a warrant could have been viewed as protecting any police claim that the injured man had culpability due to impairment.

Which raises another issue. Had the police lab gotten their hands on a sample, in the face of overt abuse such as this, whaddya wanna bet that that (denied) sample absolutely would have tested positive by that lab?

NO police departments should have their own labs. That's the OPPOSITE of "objective testing." Next time you find yourself on a jury, pay attention as to whom collected the samples, and whom tested them. Did the same lab do all testing of scene and suspect testing? Neat how that is never questioned, essentially non-science.

AND, is there such a thing as critically injured patient who doesn't have blood drawn at the hospital? Those samples could be legally obtained and tested. It seems the cop wanted his very own sample, one that no one else could test.

I agree. Drug testing, the way it's practiced, is a violation of 4th amendment rights. The presumption of guilt until innocence is proved turns our legal system upside down. There is no appealing a positive reading. The tests are in human hands.

My, my. I sense an anger management issue. It's like the story of a mechanic who won't fix his own car, or a doctor who ignores his own health issues. A "real lawyer" who can do no more than ad hominem when disagreeing, off the clock.

I work for an attorney whose brains go with him, no matter where he is. I'm fairly certain that all he would feel about "real lawyer's" posts, is pity.

As a nurse, I agree completely with scmd's (first) post. The one before he replied to some piece of scum child calling himself a real lawyer which is preposterous.

WOW!

This story was just shown on local TV news / 11:00 / Seattle...

Undetermined legal decisions pending, this doesn't bode well for police-hospital relationships, at least short run;

When you're in a hospital, u follow instructions of the staff, just like nurses would do in a cop-shop...

Very Unprofessional!

This is what a police state in a theocracy looks like.

The ER probably did a tox screen if there were a suspicion of drugs or alcohol which could have been subpoenaed later.

The nurse was assaulted, and arguably kidnapped by an armed assailant. The cop belongs in a jail cell and the nurse should sue the daylights out of the police department.

Gheco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The nurse was assaulted, and arguably kidnapped by
> an armed assailant. The cop belongs in a jail cell
> and the nurse should sue the daylights out of the
> police department.

Correct ...Correct ....Correct .....Correct

Lawsuit Time;
Nurse owns Everything the cop & department ever looked at...

just sayin'?

No, that's the TRUTH.

Other news sources have mentioned that the unconscious person was actually a victim since he was hit by a fleeing suspect during a police chase. If that's the case, then the nurse was protecting that patient's civil rights as well as HIPPA since he wasn't able to consent to the blood test.

This story has actually gone viral on social media today.

The Nurse is probably LDS and if LDS has likely been indoctrinated not to sue a fellow member. Those of low status are encouraged to "Forgive." And nurses are considered by the LDS Church to be low status, especially due to most of them being female. Would a female of low status in the LDS Church sue a police department with lots of LDS in it? She would be labeled "unforgiving," no?

LeftTheMorg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Nurse is probably LDS and if LDS has likely
> been indoctrinated not to sue a fellow member.
> Those of low status are encouraged to "Forgive."
> And nurses are considered by the LDS Church to be
> low status, especially due to most of them being
> female. Would a female of low status in the LDS
> Church sue a police department with lots of LDS in
> it? She would be labeled "unforgiving," no?

Maybe, or maybe not. She didn't meekly accede to authority.

Noooo. The nurse's attorney is Karra Porter, one of the best plaintiff's lawyers in the state. She won't need to sue. Salt Lake City will take care of her before anything's filed, that's my guess.

Did I miss something here? If the person was unconscious and had been in accident, wouldn't there be an ER situation where they *might* draw anyway as part of emergency treatment? Then of course there would then be a custody battle over the sample, but the ER doc's would want a sample to determine treatment...

There's a vast difference between drawing blood for diagnostic purposes in a hospital and a cop drawing or taking possession of a sample of blood without a warrant.

One is a life saving measure, which has implied consent. He still "owns" the blood and thanks to laws like HIPPA, it can't/shouldn't be turned over to anyone else without a warrant.

The other a violation of constitutional law, specifically illegal search and seizure.

If this cop tried to use this blood for any purpose in court (which would be weird, since this guy is a victim, but it seems the police may be trying to shift liability since they were involved in the car chase that caused the accident), anyway, any decent lawyer would have the sample thrown out and it would be inadmissible.

The argument that another cop tried to give to the nurse later, basically stating that the blood wouldn't be used, doesn't matter. The guy is still violating search and seizure laws. We don't allow (at least we shouldn't allow) police to take whatever they want and then sort it out later, that's a very bad precedent to set.

All custodial arrests Must be referred to the prosecutor; Deputy Prosecutor to boss: "YOU'RE NOT GONNA BELIEVE THIS!"

New / Next TV program: "
America's Dumbist Cops"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2017 05:44PM by GNPE.

I am glad that she has legal representation. If her lawyer advises her that she can sue, then I hope she does so. It appears from the article that the Supreme Court is on her side when it comes to the law. I don't think that her request for a warrant was unreasonable. IMO the police did not bother to apply for a warrant because they knew it would not be granted.

And if the police arrested the nurse, then why not her supervisors as well? It appears that she got an opinion from administration on how to proceed. Bullying, pure and simple.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2017 05:41PM by summer.

Agreed.

Conversely, the cop and his supervisor should both be fired and charged with false arrest and assault. And I wonder about the University police. Were they there? If so, why did they stand by and let that happen?

When police do not know, or do not obey, the constitution and the laws, we are all in trouble.

The fact this cop wasn't FIRED right away shows the department has no integrity. She should sue and own that cop's pathetic butt.

Truth Time Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact this cop wasn't FIRED right away shows
> the department has no integrity. She should sue
> and own that cop's pathetic butt.


That's my thought. I heard in one news story that he was removed from the blood collection program, but still on duty. That means he is still out there being an @ss who will snap at anything.

was a reserve officer from Rigby, Idaho, who was the victim in a high-speed chase when the guy being pursued swerved over in front of this man, who drives a semi as his regular job. This happened here in Cache Valley on July 26th. I remember the day well. My ex and my son were headed to Ogden to a doctor's appointment and had to go around the long way as it was at the mouth of the canyon.

This man is still in University of Utah Hospital.

Now the cop is on paid administrative leave. I'd love to be able to go on paid leave after how he treated this woman. AND what took so long to get this video out?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2017 08:06PM by cl2.

They only reacted because the nurse exposed them. They would have been like pigs in mud (see what I did there?) if it just "went away." The fact that they were reactive instead of proactive says volumes.

Did anyone notice the overweight tatted up University cop do absolutely nothing to try to calm the situation and support the nurse ? He then opens the door for detective hard ass . Cops always side with cops .Then the other SLCPD says "My Law" not " the law" but "my law" I know the police have a very difficult job but this cop made it difficult .Fire his ass ASAP

Jimbo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did anyone notice the overweight tatted up
> University cop do absolutely nothing to try to
> calm the situation and support the nurse ? He then
> opens the door for detective hard ass . Cops
> always side with cops .Then the other SLCPD says
> "My Law" not " the law" but "my law" I know the
> police have a very difficult job but this cop made
> it difficult .Fire his ass ASAP

I didn't catch that when I saw it, but you're right. The "my law" bit was over the top and indicative of the cop's power trip. And yes, the University cop had some degree of an obligation to protect a hospital employee who was doing her job even if from other cops. When I was there the University police were considered glorified security guards. I don't know if they were actually sworn or not, but that was the popular perception. That may be different now, but still he was derelict in his duty and should be called on it. Cops are usually going to stick together.

"paid administrative leave": VACATION!

How strong is the SL cop's union?

The mayor knew nothing about this incident until she saw it on the news. Does the police chief of SLC serve at the will of the mayor? If so I would fire his @ss if I were she. He has a responsibility to keep his superiors apprised of such situations.

I would take whatever steps necessary to fire the chief regardless. He had access to all the information that is presently available yet chose only to take the offending officer of blood-drawing duty while this incident was supposedly being investigated. I would love to see what proof he has that anything was done in regard to the so-called investigation before the nurse release the video. Once the story hit the media and his bosses became aware of it he apologized, but he probably would never have apologized had the story not hit the press. He's complicit in his inaction or very slow action.

Supposedly all officers present are being investigated for their actions or inaction, which is as it should be. It's not OK for law enforcement personnel to stand by idly as their colleagues violate policy or the law. For a long time police got away with this sort of thing. Now, with either official surveillance or unofficial videotape being almost everywhere, cops are accountable to follow the law just like the rest of us are.

I don't have anything against law enforcement personnel in general, by the way. It's only the rogues with whom I take issue.

Each pair of chief & mayor will develop their own rapport & communication levels, mayors have a lot more responsibilities & not a lot of time for day-to-day police (or fire) operations.

OTOH, the chief should protect mayor from being blind-sided.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41131664/utah-nurse-arrested-for-refusing-to-hand-over-blood

If you scroll to the end, you see it's currently (as of writing) their most watched video.

I don't know what the cop was thinking, or if any of his fellow cops next to him. she even read from a piece of paper explaining the law.

That cop deserves to be arrested, and should lose his job for an unlawful arrest of a nurse doing her job.

Hope she sues him for punitive damages.

He has no business being a police officer. And he had the nerve to ask whether this incident would jeopardize his off-duty job as an ambulance driver?

What a moron.

>And he had the nerve to ask whether this incident would jeopardize his off-duty job as an ambulance driver?

It may already have
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/02/footage-shows-slc-detective-who-arrested-nurse-saying-hed-take-good-patients-elsewhere/

Interesting, he manhandled a women in a state where women are basically chattel anyway.

In the same state where co-eds are expelled after being raped, no doubt this cop will get off Scott-free after his "paid leave."

Hope the media gives utah a good black eye for this!
(Pun intended.)

How much you want to bet the cop is a Trump supporter?
And guess what?
IF he gets off the criminal charges that are being investigated, he'll get his ass exonerated by Trump?
He was just doing his job?
Who the fuck told him to do it then?
SHouldn't they lose their GD jobs?
Shouldn't the Mayor and Police chief lose their GD Jobs, if they wrote policy to violate the constitution of the United States?

The arresting officer and his supervisor who told him to arrest the nurse after she refused to draw blood is on administrative leave. Police and the mayor offered an apology to Wubbels and the hospital.

No word on whether she'll pursue litigation, though she does have her own attorney.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/01/health/utah-nurse-arrest-police-video/index.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2017 03:56PM by Amyjo.

Her attorney is reportedly a tiger. IMO the nurse will get paid.

On the CNN videotape she says she isn't considering a lawsuit for now. She added she feels "very strongly in giving people the benefit of the doubt." If he learns from his 'mistake' then she accepts his apology and wants to move on.

She's much more accepting than most people would've been, given the same circumstances.

She's more accepting than I would be.

Just a couple other things that caught my eye from a nurse's standpoint. Not a lawyer.

1. Why are all these cops allowed to stand around in the actual nursing unit for over an hour? Bacterial transfer and infection is one of the biggest concerns in a burn unit. They should have been told to wait outside or put in a waiting room. I could actually see a dry erase board on the wall, I couldn't read it but usually these have information about patients and caregivers.
It would be very intimidating to have them just gawking, but this was probably one of their strategies.

2. What is the Logan Police dept looking for? The RN told Payne that the pt.had received pain medication en route to the burn unit and would make drug screen moot. The pt is not the suspect. Maybe a better approach would be to draw complete drug screens on the cops that were chasing the now deceased man at high speeds who then ran into the victim.

3.I don't think cops should draw blood. Conflict of interest. Too many corrupt cops that could contaminate the blood. Plus, as we found out in the West Valley death of DW, cops often carry contraband or "trophies" from other arrests in their trunks. Most likely next to the blood draw kit.

4. In the "old days" dUI blood was drawn by a licensed laboratory person. Two vials from same vein/same stick. Cop got one. Patient got the other one.

5. The RN was definitely taken against her will. I would throw in kidnapping charges along with assault charges. Did any of the cops ask her if there were other RN's who could take over her patients? Did the cops put burn patients at risk by removing their caregiver suddenly?

6. The silver toed boot-in-the-butt goes to the cop who kneels and lectures the Charge nurse about how the hospital laws and policies are conflicting with "my laws", Which he condescendingly tells the nurse that he is somewhat of an expert on. He needs to be fired and then he will have time to go to law school.

7. Doesn't the Logan Police Department have it's hands full already dealing with multiple assaults and rapes in Logan and on the USU campus? Do Logan cops even know the definition of rape?
They were suppose to be working on that.
What makes them think they can sneak a cop into a hospital in a different county and draw blood? And most likely this very sick pt.has one or two central lines from which blood has to be drawn carefully and flushed afterwards.

8. What were they thinking? Sheezzz.