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: 32
126
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Probable cause requirements only exists in the criminal offense environment. They have no application in the civil (administrative action) realm. It is like the 5th amendment. In the criminal realm you can invoke it with absolutes however on the civil side your 5th amendment protections are reduced. You can actually be ordered by a judge to testify regardless if you invoked it.

I understand how goofy the laws seem to be but there is a major difference between what occurs under criminal law and what occurs under civil law.

As for the Utah situation I think we pretty much debated it death and then some. We will have to wait and see what the investigation results are and go from there. If I am wrong (which I dont think I am) I have no issues admitting it.

As for cops and alcohol - yup, there are issues there. Not giving an excuse but I do want people to consider the following.

When you are in law enforcement you will deal with situations on a daily basis that most people wont ever experience in their entire lives. It is difficult to "talk about your feelings" to people who dont understand the job or the stress it creates, let alone understand the imagery we are exposed to. Working a homicide where the victim is a really young child its not like you can take that situation back home and talk to the family about it. You are more likely to cause psychological damage to those you are talking to. Trying to talk to other cops can be a double edged sword since both parties are most likely dealing with the same issues. You try to handle it the best you can and in some cases alcohol / drugs create that escape.




posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I understand the why, I was curious as to whether or not testing for LEO's was automatic after a wreck caused by an officer or a chase? If it is for a truck driver who is a victim, seems it should be for any LEO involved in the wreck.

To be honest, after a LEO friend of mine noticed I had a copy of the report he got agitated it was given to me. Not that he cared, he was concerned it would get loose to the public. He's long ago gone from cancer or I'd not even have mentioned it. It was not a good thing in their estimation that the public should know that it's more likely the LEO is high or drunk than the person they pulled over. I've kind of assumed that they quietly test officers often after an event.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

That is for conscious drivers. If you are an officer and you respond to a single car accident where the driver is unconscious how do you work the case? Alcohol and drugs are going to be considered along with road type, road conditions, time of day, environmental factors (sun rain snow fog) etc etc. A person doesnt have to have alcohol containers or drugs scattered about the vehicle in order to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Depends on state law or departmental policy. The agencies I worked for could do random drug testing and they can request it at any time. Shooting someone was a required blood draw.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Implied consent laws in Utah apply to all drivers operating a vehicle in that state


No they don't. They only apply to drivers who are suspected of driving impaired. Read it again...


Effective 5/9/2017
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
(1)
(a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
(i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, or 53-3-231;
(ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or
(iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in violation of Section 41-6a-517.
(b) 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 (1)(a)(i) through (iii).



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75




(b) 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 (1)(a)(i) through (iii).


This appears to be the very relevant part



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Yes, it does. You arent understanding what I am saying.

As I stated implied consent laws are in all states and extend beyond just testing. They also cover the requirement to have a valid drivers license and proof of insurance. They also require a person to submit to field sobriety tests in addition to blood breath or urine samples if it qualifies. It also allows for testing if the driver is unconscious.

A person from Florida driving in Utah are subject to Utahs implied consent laws (actually almost all Utah state laws - a few exceptions exist). The only difference would be if the driver is intoxicated Utah law enforcement cant seize their drivers license.
edit on 3-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Update -

I got a response from the article author. He reviewed it (implied consent unconscious) and said he didnt think it applies in this situation. So now we wait and see.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

So it's no longer Title 49 et al. but actual enforceable criminal law in Utah? Say it ain't so!

Implied consent is an unconstitutional pile of BS in the modern age. Involved in a fatal accident and refuse a blood draw? That's a warrant in 30 minutes or less! (YMMV) So, really, it's a rubber stamp warrant that takes little time to procure. Let's not forget the fact that modern day medical care yields toxicology reports suitable for determining proper treatment of a victim in a matter of minutes, not hours. These medical records can be procured, if need be, by a warrant at a later date.

People have mentioned the SCOTUS ruling that prohibits blood draws without consent; a case that actually began in Utah.
So why should an officer exercise a constitutionally questionable practice, at best, in a situation where little to no gain - in terms of evidence - could be made from a police administered blood draw on a victim in a MVA?



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Yes, it does.


No, it doesn't.


They also cover the requirement to have a valid drivers license and proof of insurance.

That's not implicit consent, it's a requirement to ever getting behind the wheel and operating a motor vehicle. No one is implicitly consenting to a thing where license and registration is concerned. The implied consent only factors in during an altercation where impaired driving is suspected.



They also require a person to submit to field sobriety tests in addition to blood breath or urine samples if it qualifies.

Right, but you're not accurately representing what the "if it qualifies" amounts to, so let me help you out in that regard:



Implied Consent Laws
Under "implied consent" laws in all states, when they apply for a driver's license, motorists give consent to field sobriety tests and chemical tests to determine impairment. Should a driver refuse to submit to testing when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver is under the influence, the driver risks automatic license suspension along with possible further penalties.

Pay close attention to the bolded and underlined before regurgitating the same ole crap.
Please knock it off with your nonsense rhetoric and start representing the issue with what amounts to a modicum of intellectual honesty.

In case you're confused, which you seem to be, there was ZERO reasonable suspicion because Payne said so himself and if he wanted to fight this battle the way YOU are trying to fight it, he shoulda kept his damned mouth shut.
edit on 3-9-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Ok - It isnt so. You would know this if you read the posts. In Utah its a civil offense (administrative action) and not a criminal one.

Title 49 is Federal law.

Because its not a criminal offense in Utah their implied consent laws dont fall under the scotus ruling and are considered constitutional by scotus.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Update -

I got a response from the article author. He reviewed it (implied consent unconscious) and said he didnt think it applies in this situation. So now we wait and see.


It doesn't apply in this situation because he wasn't suspected of driving impaired... which many of us civies have been trying to tell you for 32 pages now... Mr. Policeman.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Yes it does.

Utahs implied consent laws apply to every driver in that state. If your from Florida and your drunk driving in Utah you are subject to their implied consent laws just as a Utah driver is.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Update -

I got a response from the article author. He reviewed it (implied consent unconscious) and said he didnt think it applies in this situation. So now we wait and see.


It doesn't apply in this situation because he wasn't suspected of driving impaired... which many of us civies have been trying to tell you for 32 pages now... Mr. Policeman.


and i said we will have to wait and see what happen Mr. civilian. The blood draw was done.
edit on 3-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Don't know the deals in Utah. In Texas there is implied consent but a person can refuse a test. Refusing carries consequence of losing general driving privilege.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I am just poking fun at the fact that there was no way that the title 49 argument would be considered unless grasping-straws are needed. Not saying that properly certified police can't act as DOT agents, they do. But I still question if a DOT agent, without a warrant and even as phlebotomist, would be able to draw blood to be used as evidence. I guess they could do it if they wanted, regardless of whether it could be admitted.

This is a big reason why the SCOTUS wound up with the ruling we've all been harping about.

Implied consent can hold water because its so damn wishy-washy (pun intended). It's an unconstitutional idea from the start, but those are the hardest cases to argue.

I haven't been attacking you. I guess you're just grumpy and I won't take anything personal. I am a bit prickly as well.
edit on 3-9-2017 by OrdoAdChao because: clarity



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

and i said we will have to wait and see what happen Mr. civilian. The blood draw was done.


I like how you threw in that little slap in the face at the end to remind us who's boss.

"Take that civies!"

Am I right? lol



edit on 3-9-2017 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75
That just adds to the mystery and the suspicion of this whole circus.

The blood had been drawn before he even made his demand.

A critically ill man, in hospital, in a burn unit, is not receiving regular visitors, and is usually under reverse isolation. Access is usually restricted in burn units. The risk of infection and septicemia is increased. Dehydration is another concern. A demand from a police officer for a blood sample from a man that is not under suspicion of a crime, is not under arrest, and unable to consent, raises read flags, alarm with bells, whistles, sirens, and flashing lights.

The police officer was not acting as a representative of the DOT. The blood for toxicology had already been obtained. There is no law or legal reason for the request, let alone the demand.

While the laws are being microscopically reviewed, maybe some thought needs to go to why such an insane request was made in the first place, and why it was so important to them that it was allowed to escalate to this degree.

I think the scrutiny of this incident is pointed in the wrong direction.
edit on 3-9-2017 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: Word edit.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Implied consent laws arent unconstitutional as driving is a privilege and not a right. Title 49 is the federal laws governing semi drivers.

The scotus ruling doesnt apply to Utah.



posted on Sep, 3 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Xcathdra

and i said we will have to wait and see what happen Mr. civilian. The blood draw was done.


I like how you threw in that little slap in the face at the end to remind us who's boss.

"Take that civies!"

Am I right? lol




Not really... I brought that point back up because it was what the officer used to release the nurse. I have been called worse by better so whatever works for you.



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join