It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
from page 18 of the PDF sub hedder analysis: "in reviewing this matter,it is clear that the lack of understanding of the law,confusion over when "implied consent" applies and the inability to get sound legal/policy advice were Major contributions to the bad outcome that occured. S Allowed himself to get too deeply invovled in what he belived the situation called for,THAT HE FAILED TO LISTEN to C AND OTHER HOPSTIAL EMPLOYEES who were attempting to show them their policy,WHICH WAS REFLECTIVE OF THE LAW AND AN AGREEMENT WITH SLCPD,lt tracy(garity protected for 3 lines" continues:He,of all the invovled policy personell,should have reached out to the Department's legal advisorand got a definate answer.He did resolve the issue once he was at the hosptial but only after det.Payne had placed C into handcuffs and seated her in police car,although his understanding of the situaton when speaking with S was not complete,his orders to Det. Payne were based on FAULTY knowlege of the underlying issue.his widly reported statement that he "redacted" continues: was ILL ADVISED and in this case WRONG,but he clearly made this statement beliveing his understanding to be corect and hers wrong. in the policy manual concering watch commanders it says the following " The watch commander represents the office of the cheif ,overseeing day-to-day feild opperations to ensure that orders and procedures are properly executed and professional standards maintained"
the issue in play as it relates to S1 is did he comply with this directive from policy manual? the investigation noted that W was present during a signifigant portion of this interaction and noted "redacted" continues: He further knew that the underlying agency lacked probable cause to obtain a warrant for V's blood draw and made "redacted" continues: so,"redacted" continues: ,W knew that S was getting too emotionally involved in the situation and W should have more forcibly intervened,which PCRB agrees is not an easy choice to make.with an officer from the university police department also prsent,as well as the hospitals private security officers,the impetuus to not act would have been signifigant but as he"redacted" continues : . W should have attempted to use a code 909 in additon to his attempt intervene by calling S by name and "redacted" continues: there is no way to know if S would have reacted,but this intervention procedure was established for this exact fact set and it should ahve been attempted.W did not contribute to the situation but he also did not use every tool avaible to him to attempt to stop it and this inaction,it could be argued,allowed S to conintue to make bad decions with bad outcomes.
again sorry for the wall of text but as its a 21 paige pdf i feel these all add to the context of the arguement that has been going on for 56 pages and what this tells us is the following : 1.the hopsital policy was inline with pd policy and officer Payne was ignorant of such . 2.the nurse correctly defended her patients constitutional rights agaisnt an over zelous officer who let his emotions get the better of him in an admittedly tense situation .3 the supervisor bears some but not all of the blame for this as well.4 ignorace of policy played a key part in this situation and the department intends to have more frequent trainings to prevent such incidents from happening again. 5. the officers poor behavior and ignorance of the law further complicated such matters and should have defered either to his legal department or the nurses superior knowlege of the law in question
Looking at the actions of S,the following are apparant: it does not appear that Det.Payne prepared and submitted a complete police report,with the required use of force report,as is called for in the above listed policy. It appears that Det payne opted to place C under arrest,Physically,rather then issue a citation as the policy manual planely spells out.Clearly,this is a Judgement call but the descion to make an arrest over a minor misdemeanor charge is generaly associated with factors other then just the underlyign offense.As it relates to this issue,and Despite S1's Advice/order to arrest c,it is utimately up to the arresting officer to make the decision to arrest,or not arrest,unless that officers supervisior is on-scene.so the choice to arrest c,vs simply citing her ,was S to make and so he is accountable for that decision.In reviwing the video and"redacted" continues: it is very clear that S,det payne,had become to emotionally invovled in the confrontation with C.His verbal actions were loud ,aggressive and overly mission driven.it apepared as if he belived he was faced with the commonly refered to perception of "contempt of cop" by C ,when in fact,the situation shows C was attempting to stop S FROM BREAKING THE LAW.now this whole line of reasoning becomes mruky as it is equally clear that both s and s1,belived S was acting,or wanted to act,in acordance with the law/policy.So,when you have two parites viewingthe same issue from exactly opposite points of view,and both parties beliveing they are correct,emotions can run high,and they did with S,but not so with C who remained remarkably coolduring this confrontation with a police officer .as it relates to who should have the knowlege of the legalities of the situation,This investigation finds that s1 should have known the most current law/policy,but also tempers that with knowlege that this is a very,very,small part of his supervisory duties.not to excuses his lack of knwolege on this important 4th amendement issue,but no one can know everything at all times.s however is held or should be held,to a much higher standard,despite his lower rank,as he "redacted" continues: infact ,s stated"redacted" contiues:you view the situation,one truth is apparent,s "redacted" continues so if S knew the law and ignored it,the issue becomes moot,if S didnt know the law/policy about blood draws ,his precption of C "interfearing" becomes somewhat understandable ,yet still objectively wrong.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
Yeah, those reviews are interesting.... Wonder if he is the union's lawyer? Sounds like a real jewel.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
Interesting - She has no issues bitching to the media but declines to talk to the police review board. As I stated before there was more to this situation than the nurse and her lawyer were letting on. The hour and a half wait for starters is inconsistent with the claims she made that he was belligerent from the start. I think it is to protect the nurse on the off chance criminal charges are filed against her.
The detective did in fact tell the nurse she was under arrest, contrary to the CPRB report.
The nurse was direct escorted outside of the ER before being placed into handcuffs.
As I thought there is a history between SLCPD and medical staff interfering with SLCPD operations / investigations. A male nurse confirmed this when he told the detective that their "bosses were butting heads".
University Police also told the nurse that if the officer goes to arrest her they would not interfere, apparently because the nurse told them to protect her.
As I thought the nurse is the one who told the Lt., once he arrived on scene, that blood was taken. She failed to mention that during the entire few hour encounter to the detective - why?
As I thought law enforcement was using procedures for a cdl driver.
The LT. tells the Hospital COO that they found a work around to the many roadblocks the hospital is putting in front of law enforcement.
The results of the PCRB are political and make assumptions, inappropriately filling in the blanks to arrive at a conclusion. This is why PCRB are problematic as their investigation / review contradict there "assumptions" in their report. The PCRB report is contradictory to the evidence they reviewed, especially with regards to policy violations.
As for mistakes made by law enforcement during their duties -
HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA - The Supreme Court ruled courts need not throw out evidence of a crime even if the arresting police officer used unlawful tactics to obtain it.
There is a history between the Hospital, who thinks their policy reigns supreme, and law enforcement trying to do their jobs.
The basis of the PCRB conclusions -
The 3 policy violations by Det Payne -
1 - Inconsiderate contact
2 - Failed to complete a full use of force report in the time frame allowed
3 - Violation of Blood draw policy
What it means -
1 - He was mean to the nurse
2 - Did his main report but did not do a use of force supplemental
3 - He actually complied with their blood draw policy and contacted a supervisor (this also covers arrests).
The policies in the CPRB report use terms, like "guidelines". This is important terminology as it places their policies and procedures into a category of being situation specific, allowing the guidelines to be modified / ignored / changed given the situation and facts involved.
The fact the CPRB report makes it a point to give their opinion of the nurses actions, even though she refused to take part in the review, is problematic since it uses the opinions of the CPRB members to reach a conclusion in place of the witness herself.
Thankfully the CPRB restricted themselves to the policy violations only instead of giving their opinions on the criminal investigation. Releasing the results of an IA investigation are also problematic since it doesn't allow all facts of the matter to be presented. This is evident i their guesswork and the number of redacted portions for garrity.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
As I stated, and its now confirmed, there is a history between the Hospital and SLCPD with the hospital interfering in police investigations.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SRPrime
Read the thread before making claims that arent supported please. There is an exigent circumstance exception to a warrant. The Lt. also cited the driver was a CDL holder, which falls under different federal laws and not state laws.
Finally all the nurse had to do was tell the detective medical already took blood which would have ended the situation right then and there. Instead she chose to escalate with her actions. As I stated, and its now confirmed, there is a history between the Hospital and SLCPD with the hospital interfering in police investigations.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: FraggleRock
I'm still scratching my head as to why he thinks the nurse was obligated to violate HIPAA laws, and discuss the patient's care and what medical procedures he had undergone, with Officer Payne.
Who is not required to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule?
Many entities that may have health information are not subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule, including:
•most state and local police or other law enforcement agencies,
•many state agencies like child protective services, and
•most schools and school districts.
* - To report PHI to law enforcement when required by law to do so (such as reporting gunshots or stab wounds).