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: 53
126
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


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....


You keep making this assertion but provide no evidence beyond your "thoughts" on the matter. The entire video has been released and yet it does nothing but show that the cop was being a jerk. The nurse was presenting the policy which she had been told was an agreement between the hospital and police department. Her supervisor was under the same impression. And yet you continue to try to make it seem that it was her "agenda" to make trouble for police. You've dreamed up this "agenda" for her and just can't let it go despite the fact that the PD that made the initial request has now reported that they told him to let it go when she refused. Does that mean that the PD had the same "agenda" as the nurse?

She waited well over a month before releasing the video. Guess it took a while to get the "agenda" in place, eh? Why just two minutes were released? Because that's about how long the attention of the public can be held and those two minutes were certainly telling of the behavior of this guy. Nothing different is seen even while watching the entire video. Nurse Wubbels was a professional. The cop was not. That is why he's been fired from one job and on leave from the other---he acted unprofessionally--to put it as nicely as possible. Her "agenda" was to protect her patient. She made that clear in a calm, professional manner.

What was his "agenda" in slapping her and twisting her arm behind her back and arresting her? He had been told to let it go by the requesting authority. But in your mind it was her "agenda" because you've dreamed up some sort of scenario in which she is a cop hater and the cop is the victim here. You certainly have a fertile imagination.




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

I have several times now.

The nurse and her lawyer keep claiming the Salt Lake City PD agreed to the Hospitals policy and yet the Mayor and Chief both stated in public remarks that after the incident occurred they reviewed their policy and decided to make changes to it to be more in line with the Hospitals policy. Even then they have updated that they have been meeting daily with Hospital admins to work out a policy both sides can agree to.

When the detective was their he was using a Salt Lake City policy and the Hospital was using a Hospital policy. They werent the same nor did Salt Lake City agree to use the Hospitals policy.

Further the RN and her lawyer both claim their hospital policy has been in place for over a year. Riddle me this - Why did the Hospital just not decide to invoke their new policy and yet didnt with other people involved in fatality accidents?



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

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.


First, you suggest that there is a timetable for when couteousness and common sense should actually expire for Law Enforcement.

Second, you make a supposition that his time, as Law Enfircement is more valuable than any other professional doing their job is.

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.

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".

*Cue next deflective argument designed to show how you couldn't possibly be wrong*



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
First, you suggest that there is a timetable for when couteousness and common sense should actually expire for Law Enforcement.

I did no such thing and i would appreciate it if you would read and understand my post before blatantly lying about what I said.

I pointed out that there was more to the situation than the 2 minute video people are watching.


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.

Again i said no such thing and i would appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I say.



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.
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
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".

A lie. They left out the fact the detective had been calm and trying to resolve the situation for over an hour prior to the 2 minute clip they decide to selectively release. In her interviews she failed to mention the lead up or the fact they made the detective wait an hour on an admin. they also lied when they said Salt Lake City pd had agreed to the Hospital policy. The Mayor and Chief stated otherwise.



originally posted by: alphabetaone
*Cue next deflective argument designed to show how you couldn't possibly be wrong*

the only deflection is coming from you and its because you are ignoring facts that dont support your agenda.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone
From what I have read the body cam video they released was over 19 minutes long. It is available in its entirety, but most media outlets showed the part where he aggressively arrested Nurse Wubbels.

Nurse Wubbels said she called the University police because Detective Payne was rude and aggressive from his time of arrival to the hospital, and she expected trouble from him. The University police did not assist her or protect her, which is another reason that she felt it necessary to address what took place.

Utah nurse who was arrested says officer was on a 'warpath'



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

University Police didnt act because according to their chief they were under the same impression the detective was about Utah's implied consent laws. something she fails to mention in her interviews. Probably also there is the fact that the Univer5sity's own Police Department was using a different policy than the Hospital was.

They werent called until well into the situation.

It is kind of hard to be on a war path when you wait patiently for over an hour but why worry about facts but its the nurses opinion of how he acted so take it for that.

I wail say it again before someone else lies about what I say. The officers actions were inappropriate however it doesnt excuse the nurse or her lawyer from lying about aspects of what occurred.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



They left out the fact the detective had been calm and trying to resolve the situation for over an hour


Apparently, the officer thought that after an hour, the facts would change. This particular blood draw was not allowable under Utah law.



The Mayor and Chief stated otherwise.


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



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

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.

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.



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


Yes they did and I have provided direct quotes from both stating that after the incident they reviewed their policy and within 24 hours made changes to reflect the Hospitals. They also noted that it has taken several weeks for a policy both sides could agree on and I still have yet seen any announcement that a standardized policy has been adopted by both sides.

Also your source has wrong information. At no point was the detective demanding medical staff take a blood draw. He was there to do it himself.

* - source

Brown and the mayor of Salt Lake City have apologized for the incident and changed their policies to mirror hospital protocols.


* - source

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.”



Turns out the Lt. actually responded to the scene.

and, again, the Hospital policy and the police policy were in fact different. The University police policy also didnt match up with the Hospital policy and they are a part of the same system.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



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.


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!


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... .


Even after an hour of, supposedly, being patient, the laws aren't going to change! Officer Payne was wrong about everything.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

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!

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. I reiterated that when you tried, again, to claim the policies were the same even after the Chief and Mayor said they werent.

At the time the PD policy was valid and was in fact different than the Hospitals.



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... .

No really they arent.

The decision in Birchfield vs. North Dakota was ruled on in Jun 2016. Case law is taught in Stat and Con law class portion of the academies in addition to DWI/OUI portions if academies include it. If not they are a part of continuing education and usually fall under legal updates, with each stated having different requirements for continuing education requirements for law enforcement. Those continuing education updates differ from state to state in terms of how many hours from each block is required and if its required on a yearly, every 2 years or every 3 year schedule.

My state recently changed our required updates to yearly and increased the hours we are required to have. When a scotus ruling has a major effect usually training bulletins are issued and usually it comes from the PA's office.



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.

Correct however you keep sidestepping the fact the PD Policy is what they were going by, however incorrect it may have been. I find it interesting that you can hold 2 completely different positions on policy and how they are followed. My guess would be people making arguments never knew the scotus ruling changed implied consent laws until they were told by articles being written about it.

If you are going to argue its ok for Hospital staff to rely on their policy then the same holds true for pd policy. As with any use of force 20/20 hindsight cant be used when evaluating it.

i will also point out the PA's office has stated the criminal investigation is reviewing actions by everyone and is not just focused on the detective or Lt.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




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.


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.



If you are going to argue its ok for Hospital staff to rely on their policy then the same holds true for pd policy.


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.




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



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
www.nbcnews.com...

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.
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

police 1's take on the matter,i would assume they are a police focused news/information group as i had never heard of them before stumbing upon the article in question www.policeone.com...

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.
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

www.policeone.com... info about the source for above



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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.

Except for that whole "your department agreed to this policy" lie and "he was on the warpath" lie as thats not supported by the first part of the video or his report.



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.


The law changed via case law in Jun 2016 so its not 10 years out of date.

and again never said it was the Hospitals fault. Was merely pointing out the lie that the nurse and her lawyer told when they stated policies were the same when in fact they werent.
edit on 9-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Birchfield vs. North Dakota revolved around states whose implied consent laws attached a criminal penalty for refusing to submit to testing. States whose implied consent laws only attached civil (administrative) penalties were found to be constitutional (like Utah's). Instead of those state laws being completely wiped out (found unconstitutional) it only affected blood draw as a valid test unless it was by consent or exigent circumstance.

and again I want to know why if the Hospital policy has been in place for over a year why they decided just now to begin enforcing it.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Except for that whole "your department agreed to this policy" lie.


You're assumptions are not facts. You don't know that Nurse Wubbles lied. We have no reason to believe that she did. Just your own paranoia of some unseen cop hating agenda.

The Mayor nor the PD Chief said that they didn't have a legal agreement with the hospital. All they said is that they "tweaked" their policy. The nurse had been faxed, or emailed, the agreement and she had it printed out and in her hand, trying to show it to Officer Payne.

We do know that the PD's policy was 10 years behind in legal updates, and that the police academies are teaching their new recruits the same policy that Nurse Wubbles was citing from the contract, that she was holding in her hand, to Officer Payne. We do know that the hospital policy was in compliance with the law and that Payne's request was not authorized or legal under Utah law.

The officers' ignorance of policy and procedures has nothing to do with anything. They weren't acting within their own legal jurisdiction. They were wrong.

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



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




The law changed via case law in Jun 2016 so its not 10 years out of date.


According to your own source, cited in this very thread, it is.




top topics



 
126
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join