It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 14
125
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Try what again, you know you are on the wrong side of this.



reading the laws in question and understanding their application.




posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs


You are wrong on point 3, the person that was in the hospital was the victim of an accident, the person the police were chasing hit him and is dead.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Where was the driver hauling?


Destination is not relevant.
Cargo is not relevant.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you read what you posted it is? How much cj did you take?



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

There is nothing else to fixate on. The investigation into the detective's inappropriate, and according to the his department, unlawful behavior.

Anything that did or may have happened prior to the interaction between the nurse and this officer, has nothing to do with this case.

They may try to come up with some excuse for why he did what he did, but they are not going to be able to put this genie back into the bottle.

Sorry for butting in.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

and you would be incorrect.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The FMCSA, in your own link, provides guidance that is part and parcel to what is at question here:




A highway accident is generally investigated by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency that may determine that probable cause exists to conduct alcohol or controlled substances testing of a surviving driver.


There was no PC and the moron said as much to his colleague. The fact that now two officers were suspended is proof that they (the department) too, realize this.


edit on 2-9-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

These are not laws, these are regulations. The detective's job is not to enforce regulations. It's the employer of the truck driver's job to make sure that he is tested within a reasonable amount of time. If there was a criminal charge pending on the CDL driver in the case then he would have authority to either get a warrant or use the exigent circumstance exception. In this situation, I don't think he would have much luck with either as there was no suspicion and if it was needed, the results of the preliminary toxicology screen could be subpoenaed as evidence at a later date, as it would become part of the permanent medical record which can be used as evidence in criminal cases.

In short, there was no law for the police to enforce without a criminal charge on the CDL driver.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: dreamingawake

Dumb ass authoritarian cops, fire their asses, sue the living daylights out of them and for good measure they should have their assets seized.


Believe it or not, this nurse has settled for an apology and said she has decided not to sue.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you read what you posted it is? How much cj did you take?


I am in law enforcement. So in addition to my college degree and 2 police academies from 2 different states I have about 15 years experience.

You?



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Accidents involving commercial trucks require the driver be tested.
edit on 2-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

The supreme court case cited is also irrelevant.

The law he posted does not explicite allow a blood draw. The section he posted was dealing with nafta regulations from the mass of accidents caused by looser regulations and long haul drug use.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: alphabetaone

The supreme court case cited is also irrelevant.

The law he posted does not explicite allow a blood draw. The section he posted was dealing with nafta regulations from the mass of accidents caused by looser regulations and long haul drug use.


The scotus ruling doesnt apply because this would be an exception. Commercial truck drivers fall under their own set of laws. They have reduced 4th amendment protections.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


I am a former Federal Law Enforcement Officer, I know how to read laws and understand their applications. What is your background genius? I also know that an officer has what is called discretion of how to handle a scene and whether to arrest or not. I also know that the first officer on scene has command over his/her scene and even if my superior arrives and tells me to do something I do not have to as long as I am not breaking the law by not following his order. So if CO shows up and say ticket this person or arrest this person I do not have to, it is at MY discretion. Obviously the discretion applies to lesser offenses. I am in no way saying if I show up to a murder scene I can use my discretion to not arrest a murderer. I also know that as an officer I need to have Probable Cause to demand a blood test, especially when there is already an agreement or policy already in place mandating when I can or can not take blood. So if me requesting the blood was counter to the policy put in place by MY agency I would have backed off called a judge and got a warrant , problem solved, no one arrested, every one in the right.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

They are in fact laws and fall under title 49 of US code.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

Then as a federal law enforcement officer you should know the laws dealing with commercial motor vehicles. Apparently you either dont or you forgot them.

A policy is subordinate to law genius.

As I have stated numerous times I want more info as to the overall situation to place everything into context.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes I realize that. But that's a regulation, not a law. LEOs do not enforce regulations. If Utah has an actual law stating that CDL drivers are to be tested by local law enforcement than he's clear, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. The regulations mandate employers to test drivers, not the police. If there was a criminal case against the driver then they would have authority to obtain blood with a warrant or exigent circumstance exception.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Me..., the son in law of a chief of staff for attorney Gen in a North East state in charge of the state police, family full of lawyers, my wife is a research professor, and I teach grappling with law enforcement agents. In fact I teach youth wrestling with an officer in the summer and winter.


I also am a pretty good marksman have some three gun race awards and have never known of a dept that has vehicle fire arms training beyond extremely specialized units with specialized marksman.
The law you cited

The officer also acted extremely unprofessional. The demeanor and handling of the situation, even if an arrest was to be made was out of the normal procedure. For a high ranking officer it should be extremely bad.

But sure fan away at your bs



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

No they are laws and fall under title 49 of US code.



posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
So explain how he was going to be able to legally obtain the blood?

Was he going to storm troop the hospital room of a critically ill man and hope the blood was just going to jump into the tube, or was he going to stick him relentless until he was able to obtain it? Drawing blood on a compromised patient is not always the easiest thing to do, that is why they insert central catheters and the blood team is not allowed to take blood from a central catheter.

Or was he going to go to the lab, break down the door and take the specimen?

The hospital has rules and laws that they have to follow as well.

The blood was available. The nurse told him she was not the one who had the authority to give him what he wanted. The supervisor was on his way to the ER to handle the situation.

The investigation can only show what has already been seen, and known to be true. This detective acted inappropriately. He got angry because his ego was bruised and he was showing off for his peers.

He could have waited a few more minutes and got what he wanted. Instead he took out his rage on the nurse, and still walked away empty handed.

edit on 2-9-2017 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
125
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join