Nurse forcibly arrested for not allowing cop to draw blood of unconscious patient(Video)

a reply to: redhorse

Every single law enfocement agency I have ever dealt with have policy and procedures / standard operating guidelines. They also have policies / guidelines that allows the overriding of a policy based on situation specific instances and usually must come from a supervisor / duty officer.

In this case a Lt.

As an example we have a guideline that says officers will not shoot from a moving vehicle. However our training includes shooting from a moving vehicle on the off chance an incident occurs where that is the only viable option available.

a reply to: AMPTAH

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to break the law because you're afraid of retribution by your superiors. If your supervisor says shoot that unarmed man in the back are they supposed to do it?

If you know it's wrong, it's your duty to not do it and too prevent anyone else from doing it.

Jaden

originally posted by: redhorse

Even when the nurse had clearly spelled out that it was against the policy that the hospital and the police had agreed upon. He KNEW he was being asked to do something that was against policy.

No. He knew only what the nurse told him. The source of the information was not "a trusted source." His trusted source is his superiors.

The important thing here is that the blood needed to be taken right away, because tomorrow it would be too late, when any evidence of alcohol or drugs in the system would have disappeared, passed out of the body's system. There was an "urgency" to get the blood sample "as soon as possible." Otherwise, it would be useless as evidence.

The nurse was stalling him with things he knew nothing about, new rules, so he calls his boss, who tells him "arrest her", we need to force them to give us that sample now, at all costs, because later it would be too late.

He simply said, "Yes boss." Like any good cop.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AMPTAH

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to break the law because you're afraid of retribution by your superiors. If your supervisor says shoot that unarmed man in the back are they supposed to do it?

If you know it's wrong, it's your duty to not do it and too prevent anyone else from doing it.

Jaden

A policy is not law.
Breaking a policy is not a law violation in and of itself.

Your shoot an unarmed man in the back scenario is invalid because it is possible that can happen and be legal. Each incident has to measured on its own merits in terms of actions / commands being lawful. Scotus has ruled police can shoot a fleeing person in the back provided the officer can articulate that the person is a imminent danger to the public at large.

A person does not have to be armed to be considered a deadly threat.

It is all case by case and for good reason.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AMPTAH

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to break the law because you're afraid of retribution by your superiors. If your supervisor says shoot that unarmed man in the back are they supposed to do it?

If you know it's wrong, it's your duty to not do it and too prevent anyone else from doing it.

Jaden

First of all, he didn't break the law. He broke the policy. The police department and the hospital had agreed on a "policy", this is what the nurse told him, and he was requesting the hospital to break that policy, which she was not authorized to do.

Here's the weird thing. I think she was in the right, but...

Why was she the only one standing up for that patient? Where were managers, doctors, supervisers, other nurses, administrators etc. ? that almost makes you think she was in the wrong, or nobody in the hospital liked her and were using her as a scapegoat or something.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: redhorse

Even when the nurse had clearly spelled out that it was against the policy that the hospital and the police had agreed upon. He KNEW he was being asked to do something that was against policy.

No. He knew only what the nurse told him. The source of the information was not "a trusted source." His trusted source is his superiors.

The important thing here is that the blood needed to be taken right away, because tomorrow it would be too late, when any evidence of alcohol or drugs in the system would have disappeared, passed out of the body's system. There was an "urgency" to get the blood sample "as soon as possible." Otherwise, it would be useless as evidence.

The nurse was stalling him with things he knew nothing about, new rules, so he calls his boss, who tells him "arrest her", we need to force them to give us that sample now, at all costs, because later it would be too late.

He simply said, "Yes boss." Like any good cop.

LMAO

The Nurse did not just tell him, she had the policy printed out. Her supervisor was on the phone confirming it.

Why did this dickhead of a cop not ask his "trusted source" about the policy, if he did not have a clue himself?

This is just another case of might makes right, and comply or get arrested (or shot)...

a reply to: AMPTAH

Exigency more than likely doesn't apply in this incident. The driver they wanted to obtain blood from was not under arrest and nobody so far has indicated that they had probable cause to believe he was in any way impaired while driving. Both of those factors weigh heavily against the exigent circumstances argument, and I think they'd have a hard time convincing a court they had legally obtained the blood sample.

Kudos to you for an actual semi-factual argument for once, though.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: blend57

Hiya, what will happen with the nurse's record? Cuffed in a police car will impact her career prospects if she has to declare it during application procedures.

Will she need to disclose this incident in the future? I don't know how it works in the States.

Incidentally, if the officer succeeded in getting the blood, it'd be inadmissible as evidence for the three reasons the nurse cited. Perhaps his due diligence and report accuracy will also be considered in future investigations.

just had to Jump in ,

Are you Serious ?

Her Nursing Record just Increased for the Good,
Especially when these Various Body Cam Videos and Police Car Cams , Went Viral

For Protecting the Hospitals Policy & Procedures and Especially Protecting ( Defending ) the Patients Rights .

Every Hospital in the Nation ( USA ) Would Hire Her I would Assume , in Her NOW known Status.


Now the Police Cam chase Video , Clear Shows it was a Suicide
unless the Police had used a Device to shut down the Car and he Lost Control ( unlikely )

So why are they asking for blood? from the Truck Driver ( Gray ) ?

hmm

what is the Good Reason for that ?

to Blame n charge the victim on something , ?
what is the Background on the Suspect.

the Suspect is related to Someone from
the political High up ?

Quota Points for the End of the Month ?

Police State ... and Now law Enforcements
are going to be Armed with Old Military Equipment !

I just May Join the Militia. on my Reservation .

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: AMPTAH

Exigency more than likely doesn't apply in this incident. The driver they wanted to obtain blood from was not under arrest and nobody so far has indicated that they had probable cause to believe he was in any way impaired while driving. Both of those factors weigh heavily against the exigent circumstances argument, and I think they'd have a hard time convincing a court they had legally obtained the blood sample.

Kudos to you for an actual semi-factual argument for once, though.

Well, the cops had an emergency. Because it was their car chase that led to the accident in the first place. But, if they could prove that the driver of the truck was impaired, they could "deflect" some of the blame for the crash on the innocent truck driver. That's the whole point. The cops badly needed to get some evidence to avoid taking all the blame themselves. That was the emergency. What if the truck driver was impaired? They could claim the crash was all his fault, and the cops weren't responsible for the accident. They needed to find out now, if they could use that argument, to help their own case.

originally posted by: moebius

This is just another case of might makes right, and comply or get arrested (or shot)...

She was impeding an investigation, and refusing to comply with the orders from an officer of the law.

So, he arrested her for withholding evidence, and failing to comply with his orders.

The thing to remember is that a cop has only 3 tools to do his job.

1) make a threat or give a warning
2) make an arrest
3) shoot to kill

We give a high school educated individual "a badge and a gun" and send that person out to "uphold the law."

When they get out there, they have these 3 tools, to get the job done.

That's it.

If you want a better result, you'd need to require all officers have at least a college level education. So, they can then "think" on the job, reason and debate, and successfully argue with the people they encounter at their enforcement site.

But, most of the people a cop meets in his beat are smarter and better educated than him, so there's no way that cop can "persuade" anyone by words to comply with any orders.

That leads him back to the 3 tools in his toolkit.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Based on the info the pursuit seemed to be valid and within law and policy. While a wreck during a pursuit is bad it doesnt mean anyone involved did anything wrong. While public safety is a major factor in any pursuit, its balanced against the crime in question.

Do we even know any info that led up to the pursuit? Crimes / charges? was the collision an accident or did the truck driver involve himself in order to stop the pursuit? Contrary to popular belief thats a valid question since truck drivers have been know to take it upon themselves to shut down pursuit.

Further we are dealing with a severally injured driver / victim. You want as much info as possible for any unforeseen / unknown circumstances. For instance did the suspect work alone in whatever crime he committed?

a reply to: AMPTAH

Please dont comment on law enforcement in generalities. You look like an uneducated fool when you do not to mention the info you are providing is based on your opinion and not fact.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AMPTAH

It doesn't work like that, you don't get to break the law because you're afraid of retribution by your superiors. If your supervisor says shoot that unarmed man in the back are they supposed to do it?

If you know it's wrong, it's your duty to not do it and too prevent anyone else from doing it.

Jaden

First of all, he didn't break the law. He broke the policy. The police department and the hospital had agreed on a "policy", this is what the nurse told him, and he was requesting the hospital to break that policy, which she was not authorized to do.

No. He was not demanding that she break a hospital policy, he was demanding that SHE break the law.

Because the needle breaks the skin, if it is not medically necessary medical professionals cannot LEGALLY draw blood from a patient that cannot consent. A drug test is not medically necessary. As such, if she had done what the cop had asked it is legally assault. Which is why the police department signed off on that policy, to ensure that everyone follows the law and disambiguate the situation. To perform an x-ray on a patient in a situation that is not a medical emergency who cannot consent is considered assault. The law is very clear. If that test wasn't medically necessary (and it wasn't) she could not perform it without consent or due process, none of those criteria were met. This is what all of you don't understand, but medical professionals understand it.

The fear is that this will set a precedent where police can arrest medical personnel when they are not willing to break the law for the cop.

This isn't a policy war. That cop was asking that nurse to do something that she could have gone to jail for, and she certainly could have lost her license for.

a reply to: AMPTAH

He could be drunk as a skunk it doesn't matter the police have to have a reason to ask for it besides I think you might be. That's why she asked is he under arrest if because he if he wasn't under arrest. Then he had no cause to request a blood sample

Jaden

Here's the full video.

Leaving aside the arresting officer's behavior, the supervisor's justifications are just as nauseating.

@10:45

a reply to: AMPTAH
he broke the law he arrested her for not allowing him to violate the patient's Fourth Amendment rights we broke the law by attempting to First attempting to violate the fort patients Fourth Amendment rights and then for arresting her without justification or cause when she refused to allow him to or be a party to it.

Jaden

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok again if you had training it told you to shoot someone in the back who was unarmed from a moving vehicle would you then do it?

Jaden

a reply to: Xcathdra

You do not have the authority or the right to that information unless you have reason to believe or a warrant stating that you have the authority to information you don't just get to know everything because that information can help your investigation it doesn't work like that you're restrained under the law to not get information that you're not entitled to. You have to show that you have the authority to get that information that comes with a court order it's called a warrant the Fourth Amendment clearly states what you need to get the information.



Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok again if you had training it told you to shoot someone in the back who was unarmed from a moving vehicle would you then do it?

Jaden

As I stated it would depend on the circumstances.