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.
Probably because the nurse, the Hospital and her lawyer have an agenda. We are watching a pr battle play out with the Hospital. I still say there is a history between the Hospital and Law Enforcement on some of these issues that they dont see eye to eye on....
originally posted by: SheeplFlavoredAgain
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
This wise detective you speak of demonstrated that courtesy and common sense aren't luxuries to be indulged in only when the officer is feeling generous, but are effective and indispensable tools that would enable police to get their jobs more effectively and efficiently. If he had been anything like Officer Payne just think of all the time you two might have wasted arguing.
And thank you for your service to medicine and to law enforcement.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: SheeplFlavoredAgain
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
This wise detective you speak of demonstrated that courtesy and common sense aren't luxuries to be indulged in only when the officer is feeling generous, but are effective and indispensable tools that would enable police to get their jobs more effectively and efficiently. If he had been anything like Officer Payne just think of all the time you two might have wasted arguing.
And thank you for your service to medicine and to law enforcement.
The detective was courteous and demonstrated common sense for over an hour when he first arrived and tried to find a solution to get the blood. Another fact the media, the nurse and her lawyer conveniently leave out.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
First, you suggest that there is a timetable for when couteousness and common sense should actually expire for Law Enforcement.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
Second, you make a supposition that his time, as Law Enfircement is more valuable than any other professional doing their job is.
Not the nurses concern. she is responsible for patient safety and not playing point counter point with law enforcement over criminal law or federal law. I also will point out again that the Hospital had that policy for over a year yet it never was an issue for blood draws in other mva's involving fatalities.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
Third the only solution that was viable and available was one where implied consent was off the table as actionable, and that was either via a warrant or having probable cause which he had already asserted he didn't have.
originally posted by: alphabetaone
Fourth, they left nothing out conveniently or otherwise; the media restricts the amount of time a posted video clip can be as, it seems, the public at large hasn't the attention span to view longer than that in their estimation (incorrectly). They didn't hide the entire video though....had they, then they would have conveniently been "leaving something out".
originally posted by: alphabetaone
*Cue next deflective argument designed to show how you couldn't possibly be wrong*
They left out the fact the detective had been calm and trying to resolve the situation for over an hour
The Mayor and Chief stated otherwise.
originally posted by: windword
Apparently, the officer thought that after an hour, the facts would change. This particular blood draw was not allowable under Utah law.
originally posted by: windword
No they didn't. They never stated that there was not agreement with the hospital. They did confirm that their policies were out of date.
The outrageous arrest of a nurse exposed Salt Lake City police for having bizarrely out-of-date policies
Brown and the mayor of Salt Lake City have apologized for the incident and changed their policies to mirror hospital protocols.
udd said that soon after the blood-draw episode, the assistant chief quickly apologized to hospital administration for the encounter and arrest. The department examined its policy for blood draws, which was tweaked, and committed to additional training for its officers who conduct draws. The department has continued to meet with university medical officials in recent weeks, she said, to ensure adequate procedures are in place so ”it doesn’t happen again.”
The updated policy, provided by the department, states that a blood draw requires consent by the subject, or a search warrant — noting that ”implied consent” by the subject of the draw is no longer allowed. The updated policy also notes that ”blood draws are subject to established search and seizure laws.”
Not really and it has already been pointed out several times that the Hospital policy was different than Salt Lake city's as well as University Police policies who thought the implied consent law for an unconscious person was still active.
The fact that the policy was so outdated and that neither Payne, who had spent more than a decade doing blood draws, and apparently his supervising lieutenant, didn’t know the law was a shocking failure of officer training. It was, in the end, Lt. James Tracy who directed Payne to arrest Wubbels.
These are policies that are taught at the police academy, and they should be reinforced on a regular basis, according to law enforcement experts I spoke with, and have been adopted into the policies of other agencies around the state.
www.sltrib.com... .
originally posted by: windword
Who's fault is it that the Police hadn't updated their policies to conform with the law, while police academies are teaching recruits properly? Not Nurse Wubbles or the hospital administration staff, that's for sure!
originally posted by: windword
These are policies that are taught at the police academy, and they should be reinforced on a regular basis, according to law enforcement experts I spoke with, and have been adopted into the policies of other agencies around the state.
www.sltrib.com... .
originally posted by: windword
Even after an hour of, supposedly, being patient, the laws aren't going to change! Officer Payne was wrong about everything.
Never said it was the Hospitals fault. What i have been saying is the Hospital lied when the nurse claimed the PD was using the same policy when in reality they werent.
If you are going to argue its ok for Hospital staff to rely on their policy then the same holds true for pd policy.
well it seems the officer was told to let it go by colleagues and still went forward with the arrest ,and farther down in the article sadly the other officer involved is now getting death threats according to his lawyer which seems quite excessive in and of its self
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah police officer whose rough arrest of a hospital nurse has drawn condemnation put the woman in handcuffs even after investigators told him not to worry about getting a blood sample he was seeking from a patient, the chief whose department asked for it said Friday. Officers initially wanted the sample as a routine part of a car crash investigation, said Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen. But after Salt Lake City Police detective Jeff Payne was told he'd need a warrant or formal consent to get it, colleagues told him that they would pursue another strategy. "He simply said, 'Don't worry about it. We'll go another way,'" Jensen said.
so in the cited cases above it seems to clear up some issues but not all for the case as in one of them a person killed another motorists while under the influence of drugs and alcohol and yet still had the blood evidence thrown out due to it being taken illegally with out the suspects consent ,it also covers how his charge to her would not have stuck for obstruction as the quaifiers were not met (ive quoted enough of the article i dont want to quote more) which seems pretty relevant to the case at hand
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely said that police have to obtain a search warrant prior to subjecting a DWI suspect to a blood test. The Supreme Court held that the dissipation of alcohol in the blood was not an exigent circumstance for the purpose of seeking a warrantless blood draw without consent. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota ruled that implied consent statutes could not include a criminal sanction for refusal to submit to breath or blood testing. In its decision, the Supreme Court reiterated the fact that absent an exigent circumstance – other than the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood – a warrant was required for non-consensual blood draw.Case law in Utah is no different. The Utah Supreme Court in State v. Tripp, 227 P.3d 1251 (2010) suppressed blood draw evidence that tested positive for alcohol and coc aine because it was obtained without a warrant. Despite the defendant having caused the death of another motorist, the Utah court stated that the grievous nature of the case did not foreclose its duty to maintain the constitutional balance between liberty and security. In the Tripp case, the police also lacked probable cause to justify a warrantless blood draw. Even though Utah Code section 41-6a-520 provides for implied consent, this alone does not create an exigency or any other type of legal exception to the warrant requirement of Missouri v. McNeely.
originally posted by: windword
There is nothing that points to Nurse Wubbles lying, or hospital administration lying, about the legal agreement that was in writing and that Nurse Wubbles was showing Officer Payne.
originally posted by: windword
Apparently, the PD failed to update their policy to reflect their agreement. As a matter of fact, the PD failed to update their policy to reflect current law, making it 10 years out of date of the actual law. That's their fault, not the hospitals' fault, not the nurses fault, and certainly not the innocent patient's fault. This falls directly on the PD and their untrained and ill equipped police officers.
Nobody lied.
Except for that whole "your department agreed to this policy" lie.