Police Officer arrests Nurse.

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I saw this on facebook yesterday, and assumed the officer had lost his fricking mind.

[video]http://fox13now.com/2017/09/01/salt-lake-county-da-requests-criminal-investigation-into-arrest-of-u-of-u-nurse/[/video]

[video=youtube;kWtY8MEJgBY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWtY8MEJgBY[/video]

I still think so.

I suppose it is important for a blood test of the Truck Driver, but the truck driver wasn't the cause of the accident.
A car driven by a person chased by police drove into him.Where was he supposed to go.?
Was it so important that this officer couldn't wait for a warrant?
It's not like the truck driver was going anywhere.

It's important for Police and Firefighters and Hospital emergency room personnel to get along and work together, they are in contact so often.
This guy just blew it for cops going into that emergency room.
That was crazy.
 

black dog

Free America
Some LE just don't take NO for a answer well, seems that have had this problem with Johnny Law before. That's why the nurse tried to show the officers the agreement between the hospital and local LE.
She will get a nice check and he will be looking for a new job.
Good job officers on holding up that oath you took.
 

Weems

New Member
There was no reason whatsoever to take the truck driver's blood. He wasn't a suspect in the crash.

But it's all OK now. You see, the police chief and mayor of SLC have apologized. That's about as much as you're going to get out of anyone on this. Sure, the nurse may collect a few dollars for her rights which were violated (at taxpayer expense most likely), but six months from now when this has passed from our short-term memories, and the cop is finished with his paid vacation, this cop will still be policing citizens in SLC. He'll go on to retire and continue to fleece tax-paying citizens. Many speeches will be given at his send-off and everyone will be regaled with stories of what a good man, husband, father, cop he is.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
If nothing else, this shows that cops aren't just aggressive toward black people. Which we knew, but stories like this pretty much expose the whole BLM movement for the fraud it is.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
I suppose it is important for a blood test of the Truck Driver, but the truck driver wasn't the cause of the accident.
A car driven by a person chased by police drove into him.Where was he supposed to go.?
Was it so important that this officer couldn't wait for a warrant?
It's not like the truck driver was going anywhere.

Any blood alcohol in his system would be going away as time passes. But that's just the nature of the beast, I dont think 'exigency' trumps the 4th amendment when it comes to a blood draw. I also doubt that 'implied consent' is applicable here as even under 'implied consent' you still have the option to refuse if you are willing to bear the consequences for doing that.

Looks like cop got an authority trip which will now cost him his career.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
One comment I read said that People who like to bully others make poor police officers.


I think this was a great comment.
 

TWL

Kernel panic: Aiee.......
Utah has an implied consent law for operators of motor vehicles.
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
(1)
(a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
(i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, or 53-3-231;
(ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or
(iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in violation of Section 41-6a-517.
(b) A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).
(c)
(i) The peace officer determines which of the tests are administered and how many of them are administered.
(ii) If a peace officer requests more than one test, refusal by a person to take one or more requested tests, even though the person does submit to any other requested test or tests, is a refusal under this section.
(d)
(i) A person who has been requested under this section to submit to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, or urine, or oral fluids may not select the test or tests to be administered.
(ii) The failure or inability of a peace officer to arrange for any specific chemical test is not a defense to taking a test requested by a peace officer, and it is not a defense in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding resulting from a person's refusal to submit to the requested test or tests.
Utah also addresses if the subject is not able to withdraw implied consent:
41-6a-522. Person incapable of refusal.
Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.
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.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
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.

If that's the law then IMO the law is wrong. Of course they don't give a damn about my opinion. Most lawmakers dont.
 
If nothing else, this shows that cops aren't just aggressive toward black people. Which we knew, but stories like this pretty much expose the whole BLM movement for the fraud it is.
Excuse me, but you are only assuming she doesn't identify as a transgender black man.
 

Weems

New Member
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:

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_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.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Actually SCOTUS has ruled on this - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_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.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Actually SCOTUS has ruled on this - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_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.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
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. :rolleyes: and shaking head. Very scary, indeed.
 
Last edited:

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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.
SCOTUS said:
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.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
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?
 
Top