Police Officer arrests Nurse.

[Bann]

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.

If "a nurse gets lippy".

A nurse is doing her job. Her job is to protect the rights of AND ADVOCATE for her patient.

We should all think about that statement. She was doing her job.

 

[officeguy]

And at what point was "this driver" placed under arrest or even suspected of a crime?

He operated a motor vehicle, the 'implied consent' law cited above does not require an arrest. When a cop can ask for a test is governed by agency protocol, involvement in a fatal motor vehicle crash can be a reason to require a chemical test (even if the 'involvement' at first glance is as the victim of the crash).

You have very few rights once you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, even less if like the truck-driver you have a CDL.

In the end, Salt Lake PD is going to have to eat this. The detective and his LT are going to see discipline and the nurse will walk away with a nice chunk of money.

 

[officeguy]

If "a nurse gets lippy".

A nurse is doing her job. Her job is to protect the rights of AND ADVOCATE for her patient.

We should all think about that statement. She was doing her job.

Well, maybe.

In my experience, nurses like to cite 'policy' whenever they try to not do something or keep you from doing something. If you ask them to show you said 'policy' it often gets very quiet. In this case, hospital policy would not trump state law. There is a good argument that the state law is not in keeping with the supreme court decision King quoted earlier, but that would have been something for the truckdriver to litigate (either for the unlawful assault for a medically not warranted blood draw or to supress the results if the state tried to move against him based on the results), not a decision up to the frontline nurse.

 

[Ken King]

He operated a motor vehicle, the 'implied consent' law cited above does not require an arrest. When a cop can ask for a test is governed by agency protocol, involvement in a fatal motor vehicle crash can be a reason to require a chemical test (even if the 'involvement' at first glance is as the victim of the crash).

You have very few rights once you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, even less if like the truck-driver you have a CDL.

In the end, Salt Lake PD is going to have to eat this. The detective and his LT are going to see discipline and the nurse will walk away with a nice chunk of money.

And that law cited above appears to run afoul of the SCOTUS decision on the matter as there was no obvious exigency, the detective even made the BS claim as he was doing it to protect Gray's rights. So, when you have a state law and a SCOTUS decision that is counter to the law, which carries precedent? And if it was so damn critical to know why didn't the detective (also a police phlebotomist) draw the blood himself?

 

[PeoplesElbow]

The blood draw in itself is stupid because it is clear from the video that the truck driver did nothing to cause the accident other that occupying space. The police chasing the guy in the pickup are more to blame for this than the truck driver that was minding his own business. If a blood draw was demanded of the perusing police I bet they would have objected.

 

[Bann]

Well, maybe.

In my experience, nurses like to cite 'policy' whenever they try to not do something or keep you from doing something. If you ask them to show you said 'policy' it often gets very quiet. In this case, hospital policy would not trump state law. There is a good argument that the state law is not in keeping with the supreme court decision King quoted earlier, but that would have been something for the truckdriver to litigate (either for the unlawful assault for a medically not warranted blood draw or to supress the results if the state tried to move against him based on the results), not a decision up to the frontline nurse.

You don't get to decide why a nurse wants to protect her patient's rights and be their advocate.

It's what they're supposed to do. They take an oath.

 

[GURPS]

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

New Mexico man settles for $1.6M after he was anally probed 8 times during traffic stop


Eckert was kept against his will for 14 hours as police and the doctors forced him to undergo the painful and embarrassing, treatments.

"This is like something out of a science fiction movie — anal probing by government officials and public employees," Eckert’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said shortly after the suit was filed in November.

Among the violations was the fact that the search warrant for the exams was valid only in Luna County, but he was taken to Grant County after emergency room doctors first refused to do the exams on ethical grounds. He was also denied the right to make a phone call from the police station.

“It was medically unethical and unconstitutional,” Kennedy told The Associated Press. “He feels relieved that this part is over and believes this litigation might make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

 

[officeguy]

And that law cited above appears to run afoul of the SCOTUS decision on the matter as there was no obvious exigency, the detective even made the BS claim as he was doing it to protect Gray's rights. So, when you have a state law and a SCOTUS decision that is counter to the law, which carries precedent? And if it was so damn critical to know why didn't the detective (also a police phlebotomist) draw the blood himself?

The scotus decision points out that in a situation with an unconscious driver or an exigency situation different standard applies. They just said that in the three cases before the court the government didn't make a compelling case that they could demand this without a warrant ans under the threat of prosecution.

 

[Hijinx]

New Mexico man settles for $1.6M after he was anally probed 8 times during traffic stop


Eckert was kept against his will for 14 hours as police and the doctors forced him to undergo the painful and embarrassing, treatments.

"This is like something out of a science fiction movie — anal probing by government officials and public employees," Eckert’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said shortly after the suit was filed in November.

Among the violations was the fact that the search warrant for the exams was valid only in Luna County, but he was taken to Grant County after emergency room doctors first refused to do the exams on ethical grounds. He was also denied the right to make a phone call from the police station.

“It was medically unethical and unconstitutional,” Kennedy told The Associated Press. “He feels relieved that this part is over and believes this litigation might make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

He should have gotten more.

 

[black dog]

He should have gotten more.

200 grand per probe..... That's some high end anal...

 

[Hijinx]

200 grand per probe..... That's some high end anal...

depends on whether you are giving or receiving.

 

[Ken King]

The scotus decision points out that in a situation with an unconscious driver or an exigency situation different standard applies. They just said that in the three cases before the court the government didn't make a compelling case that they could demand this without a warrant ans under the threat of prosecution.

Yes it does, and what the decision states is

It is true that a blood test, unlike a breath test, may be administered to a person who is unconscious (perhaps as a result of a crash) or who is unable to do what is needed to take a breath test due to profound intoxication or injuries. But we have no reason to believe that such situations are common in drunk-driving arrests, and when they arise, the police may apply for a warrant if need be.

The need being that if the driver wasn't under arrest then there would be no exigent need and a warrant would be required.

 

[Merlin99]

He operated a motor vehicle, the 'implied consent' law cited above does not require an arrest. When a cop can ask for a test is governed by agency protocol, involvement in a fatal motor vehicle crash can be a reason to require a chemical test (even if the 'involvement' at first glance is as the victim of the crash).

You have very few rights once you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, even less if like the truck-driver you have a CDL.

In the end, Salt Lake PD is going to have to eat this. The detective and his LT are going to see discipline and the nurse will walk away with a nice chunk of money.

In the first paragraph you say that the cops are right, then in the last you're admitting they're wrong. What's wrong with picking a side and running with it.

 

[officeguy]

In the first paragraph you say that the cops are right, then in the last you're admitting they're wrong. What's wrong with picking a side and running with it.

All the internet lawyering nonwithstanding, he may have been within his rights to demand access to the patient to obtain a blood sample. I simply dont know the answer to that question, between implied consent and an exigency issue it is possible that the the police had a right to obtain that sample.

What he most definitely didn't have a right to do was to detain someone who was simply arguing with him.

They are two separate issues and I can say 'I dont know' about one and 'I do know' about the other.

 

[Weems]

All the internet lawyering nonwithstanding, he may have been within his rights to demand access to the patient to obtain a blood sample. I simply dont know the answer to that question, between implied consent and an exigency issue it is possible that the the police had a right to obtain that sample.

Neither implied consent nor exigency apply here. Consent was required. This is evident with nothing more than a perfunctory read of what's already been posted to this thread in both Utah State Law for implied consent and the SCOTUS in Birchfield v North Dakota. By all reports of this, the truck driver wasn't suspected of being under the influence of any substance. Therefore, this was an illegal order by the detective and as such, so was the arrest of this nurse.

What he most definitely didn't have a right to do was to detain someone who was simply arguing with him.

LEOs always have this right as long as they are giving a lawful order and someone disobeys/argues/whatever. In this case, it wasn't a lawful order.

 

[Tech]

LEOs are the government and the government does not have rights, they may have the authority. Just a pet peeve on wording.

 

[Lurk]

The blood draw in itself is stupid because it is clear from the video that the truck driver did nothing to cause the accident other that occupying space. The police chasing the guy in the pickup are more to blame for this than the truck driver that was minding his own business. If a blood draw was demanded of the perusing police I bet they would have objected.

There is just too little information to make a solid argument either way. Too many have assumed the blood was drawn solely to test for chemicals and that is a stupid assumption to make in the E.R. Too many assume the nurse was being bitchy and obstructive. The video is too edited to allow anyone to sort it out.

However, it appears the officer was detailed to the E.R. (different uniform than the other officers in the video, taken off the blood-draw unit, etc.) and there may have been discussions/arguments among the E.R. staff prior to this episode. When the truck driver was brought into the E.R. it was an opportunity for the parties to act on what their previous bias or belief dictated. A vial of blood became the target of the argument, not the rights of the driver or authority of the nurse or the officer.

In the wash of this episode, it will be stated the blood of the "innocent" truck driver had to be taken to clear him of any culpability so the "guilty" automobile driver cannot use the possibility the truck driver was somehow at fault. The nurse will argue that the truck driver's rights were hers to protect from an over zealous Nazi jack-booted police officer. The administrator of the hospital should have been called, the blood sample placed in a fridge, and calmer heads should have been making decisions. Didn't happen. This stupidity will happen numerous times and nothing will be resolved. It's human nature.

 

[Merlin99]

There is just too little information to make a solid argument either way. Too many have assumed the blood was drawn solely to test for chemicals and that is a stupid assumption to make in the E.R. Too many assume the nurse was being bitchy and obstructive. The video is too edited to allow anyone to sort it out.

However, it appears the officer was detailed to the E.R. (different uniform than the other officers in the video, taken off the blood-draw unit, etc.) and there may have been discussions/arguments among the E.R. staff prior to this episode. When the truck driver was brought into the E.R. it was an opportunity for the parties to act on what their previous bias or belief dictated. A vial of blood became the target of the argument, not the rights of the driver or authority of the nurse or the officer.

In the wash of this episode, it will be stated the blood of the "innocent" truck driver had to be taken to clear him of any culpability so the "guilty" automobile driver cannot use the possibility the truck driver was somehow at fault. The nurse will argue that the truck driver's rights were hers to protect from an over zealous Nazi jack-booted police officer. The administrator of the hospital should have been called, the blood sample placed in a fridge, and calmer heads should have been making decisions. Didn't happen. This stupidity will happen numerous times and nothing will be resolved. It's human nature.

I think you've made a couple of erroneous assumptions. In the first paragraph "Too many assume the nurse was being bitchy and obstructive", I don't think that's anyone's but possibly officeguys belief. Everyone else thought the cop went full on stormtrooper for no reason. In the last you've inferred that they wanted the blood to clear the truck driver of fault, the majority believes it was much more likely to help provide cover for the persuing police for their inevitable lawsuit.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

There is just too little information to make a solid argument either way. Too many have assumed the blood was drawn solely to test for chemicals and that is a stupid assumption to make in the E.R. Too many assume the nurse was being bitchy and obstructive. The video is too edited to allow anyone to sort it out.

However, it appears the officer was detailed to the E.R. (different uniform than the other officers in the video, taken off the blood-draw unit, etc.) and there may have been discussions/arguments among the E.R. staff prior to this episode. When the truck driver was brought into the E.R. it was an opportunity for the parties to act on what their previous bias or belief dictated. A vial of blood became the target of the argument, not the rights of the driver or authority of the nurse or the officer.

In the wash of this episode, it will be stated the blood of the "innocent" truck driver had to be taken to clear him of any culpability so the "guilty" automobile driver cannot use the possibility the truck driver was somehow at fault. The nurse will argue that the truck driver's rights were hers to protect from an over zealous Nazi jack-booted police officer. The administrator of the hospital should have been called, the blood sample placed in a fridge, and calmer heads should have been making decisions. Didn't happen. This stupidity will happen numerous times and nothing will be resolved. It's human nature.

The video clearly shows that the semi was in it's lane when the pickup hit it. There is no need to prove oneself innocent, the police were just fishing for someone else to blame.

If you are ever in an accident with a cop and it is their fault you will understand.

 

[Gilligan]

Backlash and consequences...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Utah-hospital-bars-cops-from-contact-with-nurses-12172530.php