Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 220

Thread: Police Officer arrests Nurse.

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TWL View Post
    Utah has an implied consent law for operators of motor vehicles.

    Utah also addresses if the subject is not able to withdraw implied consent:

    This basically says that if the officer believes you to be operating a motor vehicle under the influence, you are subject to breath/blood/urine/oral tests. You may refuse, with consequences. If you are unable to refuse, consent is still valid.

    Wait! What? But the patient was the one how got hit.
    Not being at the scene of the accident, we are not in a position to know the details of the scene. It's possible there was evidence indicating the patient had been operating their vehicle under the influence leading the officer to believe so.

    So why did the nurse get arrested?
    Because she refused to comply with a possible legal order from an officer. She should have complied. If there were doubts about the legality of the order, it should be determined in a court of law or face the consequences of refusing the order from the officer.

    But the hospital has a policy of not administering these tests of incapacitated patients.
    Hospital policy doesn't have any weight compared to the law. It's there to CYA against lawsuits from patients.
    A blood draw is a 4th amendment search. Generally, a warrant for a 4A search is required, but there are exceptions: consent and exigency. If you can secure consent, then no warrant is required. In the case of exigency with respect to venipuncture, the argument is made that blood alcohol/drug levels dissipate over time if a warrant has to be secured.There is much case law on this around the country (some jurisdictions will allow it, but not others), but in Birchfield v North Dakota which was taken up by SCOTUS, they didn't address exigency. They left it an open question.

    This doesn't mean the officer was free to draw blood from the truck driver without a warrant though. The one niggling fact here is that the truck driver wasn't under arrest, which means there was no probable cause that he was under the influence of drugs or ETOH. Therefore, none of the roman numerals i-iii under (a) apply and as such a warrantless 4A search would require consent for it to be legal.

    This was absolutely NOT a legal order given to that detective, and the arrest of that nurse was therefore illegal.
    Last edited by Weems; 09-02-2017 at 03:14 PM.

  2. #12
    Oldtimer Ken King's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Up the hill and down the holler
    Posts
    14,767
    Quote Originally Posted by TWL View Post
    Utah has an implied consent law for operators of motor vehicles.

    Utah also addresses if the subject is not able to withdraw implied consent:

    This basically says that if the officer believes you to be operating a motor vehicle under the influence, you are subject to breath/blood/urine/oral tests. You may refuse, with consequences. If you are unable to refuse, consent is still valid.

    Wait! What? But the patient was the one how got hit.
    Not being at the scene of the accident, we are not in a position to know the details of the scene. It's possible there was evidence indicating the patient had been operating their vehicle under the influence leading the officer to believe so.

    So why did the nurse get arrested?
    Because she refused to comply with a possible legal order from an officer. She should have complied. If there were doubts about the legality of the order, it should be determined in a court of law or face the consequences of refusing the order from the officer.

    But the hospital has a policy of not administering these tests of incapacitated patients.
    Hospital policy doesn't have any weight compared to the law. It's there to CYA against lawsuits from patients.
    Actually SCOTUS has ruled on this - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1468_8n59.pdf - and from what I have observed/read is that without the "patient/truck driver" being placed under arrest the LEO would have needed to obtain a warrant prior to getting the blood.

  3. #13
    Registered User
    Member Since
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken King View Post
    Actually SCOTUS has ruled on this - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1468_8n59.pdf - and from what I have observed/read is that without the "patient/truck driver" being placed under arrest the LEO would have needed to obtain a warrant prior to getting the blood.
    That makes sense.
    Well right or wrong legal or not that guy was an a-hole, acted like one, No one should be treated the way he treated that lady.

  4. #14
    They call me ... Sarcasmo kom526's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Beyond the OB stakes
    Posts
    15,956
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gawd@mned body cameras!!! Lolz
    Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been.

    Somewhere, a teacher is crying with their red marker after reading your dribble.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken King View Post
    Actually SCOTUS has ruled on this - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1468_8n59.pdf - and from what I have observed/read is that without the "patient/truck driver" being placed under arrest the LEO would have needed to obtain a warrant prior to getting the blood.
    No warrant necessary under 'implied consent'. Either way, if a nurse gets lippy or doesn't want to do what you want her to do, you get the hospitals administrator on duty (AoD) to sort out the details, you don't assault her. Guy is a jerk and should be fired.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by officeguy View Post
    No warrant necessary under 'implied consent'. Either way, if a nurse gets lippy or doesn't want to do what you want her to do, you get the hospitals administrator on duty (AoD) to sort out the details, you don't assault her. Guy is a jerk and should be fired.
    Agree. That is why she is a nurse. The cop should hope that if he was ever in need of a nurse, a nurse would be there for him. I know most Americans support cops, but...

    Police state, anyone? So, we have no reaction from police in Charlottesville with the violence, because they were told to stand down, (and don't forget about Berkeley), but we have police arresting a nurse. Oh, ok. and shaking head. Very scary, indeed.
    Last edited by littlelady; 09-03-2017 at 12:00 AM.
    ​​Like I said. JMO, yo! - Roman
    If you ignore the trolls, they starve. - Wishbone

  7. #17
    Oldtimer Ken King's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Up the hill and down the holler
    Posts
    14,767
    Quote Originally Posted by officeguy View Post
    No warrant necessary under 'implied consent'. Either way, if a nurse gets lippy or doesn't want to do what you want her to do, you get the hospitals administrator on duty (AoD) to sort out the details, you don't assault her. Guy is a jerk and should be fired.
    From what I read in the SCOTUS decision "implied consent" has been narrowed for taking bodily fluids without a warrant.
    Quote Originally Posted by SCOTUS
    Held
    :
    1. The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests. Pp. 13–36.
    (a) Taking a blood sample or administering a breath test is a search governed by the Fourth Amendment. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 616–617; Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 767–768. These searches may nevertheless be exempt from the warrant requirement if they fall within, as relevant here, the exception for searches conducted incident to a lawful arrest. This exception applies categorically, rather than on a case-by-case basis.
    If the driver was not under arrest a warrant would be required.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken King View Post
    From what I read in the SCOTUS decision "implied consent" has been narrowed for taking bodily fluids without a warrant.
    If the driver was not under arrest a warrant would be required.
    Re-read the decision you quoted. It actually spells out that in the case of an unconscious person the legal analysis would be different. It doesn't spell out what the answer would be, but it hints that the state has a compelling interest in the situation of an unconscious driver.

  9. #19
    Oldtimer Ken King's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Up the hill and down the holler
    Posts
    14,767
    Quote Originally Posted by officeguy View Post
    Re-read the decision you quoted. It actually spells out that in the case of an unconscious person the legal analysis would be different. It doesn't spell out what the answer would be, but it hints that the state has a compelling interest in the situation of an unconscious driver.
    And at what point was "this driver" placed under arrest or even suspected of a crime?

  10. #20
    Doris Day meets Lady Gaga Bann's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Prince Frederick
    Posts
    25,667
    Opinion piece from the Blue Lives Matter FB page (links to their website)


    https://bluelivesmatter.blue/salt-la...-arrest-video/

Members who have read this thread: 98

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |