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: 26
126
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Not even worth replying to xcath as everyone (ie: Police department, Police chief, CRB, Mayor, hospital policy, the law, Supreme Court, general public) say this was an unjustified arrest. Even the other police that were there asked him why he doesn't get a warrant and the cop himself said he did not think a judge would grant it.




posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Some more information.

The Supreme Court ruling in Birchwood vs. N. Dakota was a limited scope ruling. A warrant requirement for blood draws ONLY applies to states whose implied consent laws create a criminal penalty for refusal. States whose implied consent laws that result in a civil penalty for refusal are not subject to the ruling and were deemed constitutional by scotus.

Utah's implied consent laws only allow a civil penalty for people who refuse. It also allows for a warrantless blood draw if the person is unconscious.

Paul Cassell: Cop who arrested nurse was wrong, but the law is complicated It turns out the Nurse Wubbels was correct, but not for the reasons that she gave.

Utah's Implied consent law



Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court favorably discussed such implied consent laws. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the court struck down a North Dakota implied consent law – [but only on the narrow ground that North Dakota had provided a criminal penalty for those who refused to consent to a blood draw. The court noted that its previous decisions had “referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply” and “nothing we say here should be read to cast doubt on them.” Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional.


Again truck drivers fall under a different category than other drivers and is governed by federal law which impacts the requirements of Utah's implied consent law as it supersedes it.
edit on 3-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

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


He had no grounds to believe or reasonable suspicion or Probable Cause to believe the person in question was impaired by any substances . Period. End of story



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


From you link:

But while Utah’s law is constitutional, it turns out not to have permitted this specific blood draw. As written, Utah’s law only permits an officer to conduct such a test where he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person from whom blood is to be taken was driving “while in violation of” the laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances. In this case, the detective specifically lacked any such grounds, because the draw was being taken to show the opposite – that the driver was not under the influence. Utah’s implied consent law did not authorize this particular blood draw under these particular circumstances.


Why did you leave that part out?



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: norhoc

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


He had no grounds to believe or reasonable suspicion or Probable Cause to believe the person in question was impaired by any substances . Period. End of story




The person was unconscious so no.

Title 41 Chapter 6a Part 5 Section 522 - Person incapable of refusal.

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



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Because Utah law does in fact allow for it if the person is unconscious. An unconscious person in Utah gives implied consent for the tests, whether they are under arrest or not.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


did you actually read the article you posted? All your arguments are dead based on that article it clearly states that they had no implied consent, no warrant no pc no reason , it clearly states they were wrong . Yet you still can not admit it. You are the only person that is still defending this even though the law says otherwise. This will be my last reply to you as you have proven yourself wrong by linking that article and recommend others stop replying as well.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

Read -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

im not going away and im not going to give in to people who have issues understanding the laws. Utahs implied consent allows for a warrantless blood draw if the person is unconscious.

The only way to get blood is from a warrant or consent. An unconscious person under Utahs implied consent laws is consent for the test.
edit on 3-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Read the last paragraph of the article you linked man--

"While the law is constitutional, it turns out NOT TO HAVE PERMITTED THIS SPECIFIC BLOOD DRAW"



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Read the last paragraph of the article you linked man--

"While the law is constitutional, it turns out NOT TO HAVE PERMITTED THIS SPECIFIC BLOOD DRAW"


Read -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

im not going away and im not going to give in to people who have issues understanding the laws. Utahs implied consent allows for a warrantless blood draw if the person is unconscious.

The only way to get blood is from a warrant or consent. An unconscious person under Utahs implied consent laws is consent for the test.

The article failed to note this provision of the implied consent law.

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.


a warrant is not required.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


It doesn't matter. Your point is moot because the semi-truck driver didn't fall into a category making it lawful to take his blood. There was no reasonable suspicion, there were no exigent circumstances. The blood draw was not permitted under the Utah law, according to your own link.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Read the last paragraph of the article you linked man--

"While the law is constitutional, it turns out NOT TO HAVE PERMITTED THIS SPECIFIC BLOOD DRAW"


READ, it is not hard, apparently your comprehension skills are lacking. Or you are being deceptive or selective in what you read.










posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

He was unconscious which met the criteria.


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.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

Read and understand it.


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.

edit on 3-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


NO! Reasonable suspicion is the criteria!



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra


NO! Reasonable suspicion is the criteria!


Or if the person gives consent. He was unconscious and therefore implied consent to the tests is applied.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



You keep ignoring or purposefully omitting key facts, such as Reasonable Suspicion, Probable Cause, or exigent circumstances are required of which there were none of these. I hope to god you are not really LE as you claim, but if you are you are of the same cut as this cop that doesn't understand the law in which he swore to enforce.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



You need to read and understand, read the last paragraph...


"While the law is constitutional, it turns out NOT TO HAVE PERMITTED THIS SPECIFIC BLOOD DRAW"



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

and you are intentionally ignoring the implied consent portion and its application if the person is unconscious.

I really dont think you should be lecturing anyone on how to read laws. You seem to be having issues with this rather simple one.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra



You need to read and understand, read the last paragraph...


"While the law is constitutional, it turns out NOT TO HAVE PERMITTED THIS SPECIFIC BLOOD DRAW"





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.

edit on 3-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join