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

This info and well written article by a licensed attorney (Leon Wolf) will shed some light on the situation here.

A monumental 2016 Supreme Court Ruling that set a legal precedent says this cop was in the wrong.

www.supremecourt.gov...


Good Article on What the Law States


What the law says

In June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring drivers to submit to a blood test without a warrant was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reasoned that, unlike breathalyzer tests, blood tests are sufficiently invasive that without a warrant, they constitute an “unreasonable search” and thus violate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that this is true even when a driver is lawfully arrested for drunk driving:

Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant. …

Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests, we conclude that a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving.

Notably, the court rejected an approach favored by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, writing in dissent, who would have permitted police to engage in a case-by-case analysis. The court’s reasoning was thus clear: Police must obtain either a warrant or consent before drawing a suspect’s blood sample.

Further more how the law applies here

I said this in an earlier post about the hospital getting sued for breaking their protocol, and standing laws.

In this case, the truck driver was not even a suspect in the case. The police had no probable cause to obtain a warrant for his blood because he was not suspected of doing anything wrong. And because he was unconscious, he was legally incapable of giving consent.

And while a patient is unconscious and in the care of a hospital, the hospital can be held legally liable if they allow patients in their care to have their rights violated — including by police. Following Payne’s illegal order thus could have subjected both Wubbels and the hospital to a lawsuit.

The final conclusion of the article makes a pretty clear common sense statement.

What it means Payne was a police phlebotomist, which means that his main job function was to draw blood samples for his police department.

It is troubling, at the very least, that someone whose primary job is to draw blood samples for the police would not know that the law requires police officers to obtain a warrant or consent before drawing blood.

The nurse also said she will not pursue charges at this moment, however:

Wubbels maintains that for now, she does not want to sue, she wants to make a point. According to the Deseret News, when asked if she planned to sue, she said:

" I think right now, I believe in the goodness of society. I want to see people do the right thing first and I want to see this be a civil discourse. And if that’s not something that’s going to happen and there is refusal to acknowledge the need for growth and the need for re-education, then we will likely be forced to take that type of step. But people need to know that this is out there."

originally posted by: Xcathdra

wrong.

So, the State of Utah, the city of Salt Lake City, the DA's, the hospital staff, his own department heads, and the public at large all disagree with your baseless claims, and you call everyone else wrong.

hahahahaha


ETA: I forgot the Mayor.

a reply to: dreamingawake

There is little I can add to all the previous replies.. The only thing that worries me how it is possible that this cop does not know he will get himself into some serious trouble if he will continue to persue this need for blood.

Maybe he is so seriously mindfkd by his superiors/ profession that his brain can not accept "no" from a civilian.

He thought he could scare her into submission. It's probably worked before.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Xcathdra

Civilian? "Cops" ARE "civilians". They have no "Military" authority. Let alone, They have no "legal" obligation, "to protect and serve". My own son is a "cop". I know the "law" better than he does, even after his "cop/certification/indoctrination school". I'm still trying to figure out what "Constitution" he swore to "uphold and defend". If you think you ain't a "civilian"? You get a second thought, out of pity and a gentleman kind of honour. Now go forth! And collect revenue!

yup - civilian. Law enforcement is tasked with protecting society as a whole and not the individual. The rest of your post makes it clear as to what you are all about so I will leave it here.

a reply to: Realtruth

and yet the article fails to mention he was a truck driver and falls under different laws. They also failed to mention the supreme court ruling allows for warrantless blood draws based on certain criteria. But why worry about those facts right.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Way to not read my post and instead repeat something that is based on incomplete information.

2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest

Payne was attempting to get a blood sample from William Gray, a reserve officer in Rigby, Idaho, who was burned after being involved in a head-on crash with a pickup truck driver who was fleeing police, the Washington Post reported. The driver died in the incident.

Payne wrote in a police report that he grabbed Wubbels and took her outside to avoid causing a "scene" in the emergency room. He said his boss told him to arrest Wubbels if she kept interfering.

The detective left Wubbels in a hot police car for 20 minutes before realizing that blood had already been drawn as part of treatment, her lawyer, Karra Porter, said. Wubbels was released without being arrested.

She was detained and not arrested.
Blood sample was already retrieved when the incident occurred.
The RN should have looked at the chart to see if blood had already been taken and relayed the info to the detective.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Realtruth

and yet the article fails to mention he was a truck driver and falls under different laws. They also failed to mention the supreme court ruling allows for warrantless blood draws based on certain criteria. But why worry about those facts right.

Maybe we are looking at different articles?

The one I reference specifically mentioned he was a truck driver. Here is snipit of the article.

www.theblaze.com...

Why the confrontation occurred According to the Deseret News, the confrontation occurred July 26 after a car crash that followed a high-speed police chase. A vehicle driven by an unnamed suspect was fleeing from police in Cache County when it crossed into on coming traffic and suffered a head-on collision with a truck.

The suspect was killed in the crash, and the truck driver was taken to the University of Utah Hospital in Salt Lake City. The truck driver was severely burned in the crash, so he was sedated and admitted to the hospital’s burn unit. For reasons that are not immediately clear —

the truck driver was not suspected of a crime and the suspect was deceased —

Payne was ordered by his supervisors to obtain a blood sample from the truck driver and to arrest anyone who attempted to interfere.

There was only one problem: Payne had no warrant, lacked probable cause to get a warrant, and the truck driver was unconscious and thus could not consent to having his blood drawn. That led to the dramatic confrontation caught on video:

a reply to: Realtruth

My apologies.. I was referring to the fact they used truck instead of semi (as I did so again my bad). Truck is a general term that can mean pickup, dump truck, etc etc etc.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist
Even if the doctor was in the hospital, the nurse would still be in charge. Doctors write orders for their patients, and not all patients have the same doctor. Some doctors don't have hospital privileges so a hospitalist or another doctor that has privileges may cover for the doctor.

Doctors know very little about hospital policies, rules and regulations. They depend on the nurse to keep them out of trouble.

They have their hands full thy don't want anything to do with anything like this.

Also, all hospital administrators are not doctors, some have absolutely no medical background at all.

Yup. But my point was I'm not doing a blood draw on a patient without a doctors order. I take my orders from doctors. Not police.
I'm an RN manager at a 120 bed facility. You don't have to tell me about administration not having a medical background. But their aunt was a nurse so they know all about nursing. My first thought was imagine the incident reports and in-services that will have to be done on this one.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest

Payne was attempting to get a blood sample from William Gray, a reserve officer in Rigby, Idaho, who was burned after being involved in a head-on crash with a pickup truck driver who was fleeing police, the Washington Post reported. The driver died in the incident.

Payne wrote in a police report that he grabbed Wubbels and took her outside to avoid causing a "scene" in the emergency room. He said his boss told him to arrest Wubbels if she kept interfering.

The detective left Wubbels in a hot police car for 20 minutes before realizing that blood had already been drawn as part of treatment, her lawyer, Karra Porter, said. Wubbels was released without being arrested.

She was detained and not arrested.

The officer clearly says "You're under arrest" in the video.

Blood sample was already retrieved when the incident occurred.

I believe that was "assumed" to be true, but don't recall that "fact" being reported. At any rate, if a blood sample was drawn, it was already used for its intended purpose, blood type, etc. The police would've have needed their own sample, to do a tox-screen.

The RN should have looked at the chart to see if blood had already been taken and relayed the info to the detective.

Moot point.

Also, you say the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood draws were okay, sometimes? Please cite/source that actual part of the ruling. I can't find it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

General rule of thumb - You ask them, you tell them and if you still dont get anywhere you make them.

I seriously hope you're nearing retirement.

originally posted by: windword
Also, you say the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood draws were okay, sometimes? Please cite/source that actual part of the ruling. I can't find it.

Page 4 section e
Birchfield vs. N. Dakota

(e) Because the impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for BAC testing is great, the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. Blood tests, however, are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant. In instances where blood tests might be preferable—e.g., where substances other than alcohol impair the driver’s ability to operate a car safely, or where the subject is unconscious nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception if it applies. Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests, a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. No warrant is needed in this situation. Pp. 33–35.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Xcathdra

General rule of thumb - You ask them, you tell them and if you still dont get anywhere you make them.

I seriously hope you're nearing retirement.

Why? For explaining a training technique? Are you that frightened by facts?

a reply to: Xcathdra

To bad the dept says otherwise huh?

Everything you have said is fraud.

Your a fraud. The dept itself, the mayor are changing the policy to make sure it will never happen again.
The detective did not uphold the standards of law enforcement and he is going to be held responsible.


You can cry about it when he is punished.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: windword
Also, you say the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood draws were okay, sometimes? Please cite/source that actual part of the ruling. I can't find it.

Page 4 section e
Birchfield vs. N. Dakota

Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant. In instances where blood tests might be preferable—e.g., where substances other than alcohol impair the driver’s ability to operate a car safely, or where the subject is unconscious nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception if it applies. Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests, a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. No warrant is needed in this situation. Pp. 33–35.

What prevented the officers from obtaining a warrant? What were the "exigent circumstances"? There was no "reasonable suspicion" that the semi-truck driver was under the influence of anything.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Why?

Because you sound like a mindless drone who (if ordered to do so by your superior) would fire on a crowd of innocent people without hesitating.