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: 57
126
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

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.


Are the police the ones responsible for obtaining a blood sample for CDL holders?

That seems kind of odd to me.


Zaph is correct in general however SLCPD policy requires a blood draw for law enforcement purposes be done by a member of their blood draw unit. That info is also included in the full CPRB release.
edit on 14-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Read the entire CPRB IA report. It is contained in there in S1 section.

The male nurse commented on it. The Lt. also commented on it -
* - "Your policy is constraining what I need"
* - "There is a very bad habit up here of your policy interfering with my law"


I require a higher burden of proof than an offhand comment by a nurse that applied to the context of this single situation and the flippant remarks of an annoyed officer before concluding that this hospital has a history of interfering with police investigations.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Read the entire CPRB IA report. It is contained in there in S1 section.

The male nurse commented on it. The Lt. also commented on it -
* - "Your policy is constraining what I need"
* - "There is a very bad habit up here of your policy interfering with my law"


I require a higher burden of proof than an offhand comment by a nurse that applied to the context of this single situation and the flippant remarks of an annoyed officer before concluding that this hospital has a history of interfering with police investigations.


Ignore the obvious, that is certainly your prerogative. There is a history between the Hospital and the Police and that is evident in the comments by medical and the Lt. Had there not been issues in the past the situation would have gone differently.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


This guy didn't fall under any of those exceptions. The nurse had no duty, nor right to inform the officers about any procedures, including the blood draw. The Kirby PD already said they needed a warrant, which they couldn't get.

As it was, when the nurse told him that the blood, at that point, would be tainted, the officer implied that they would sort it out later when they found out what drugs he had been given. That's backwards and not the way it works.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Yup and if you understood context you would realize the PD policy was changed AFTER the incident occurred.

At the time the incident occurred the Hospital policy and SLCPD policy were NOT the same. The nurse and her lawyer lied when they claimed they were the same. The Mayor and Chief confirmed that.

Oh man , you do realise that you are simply confirming to the rest of us that no matter what, you will not accept responsibility regardless of being right or wrong.



Didnt follow the conversation did you? What part of this is confusing you?

The policies werent the same.
The nurse and her lawyer claimed the police agreed to the hospital policy.
The mayor / chief said they changed their policy after the incident.

You up to speed now?






I can read just fine thanks.

You are continuing to prove my point, I don't have to do anymore than sit back and watch you flailing round and round in circles, Anyhow don't let me get in the way of your attempt to legitimise the wrongful arrest.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

He was involved in an intentional accident where he was the victim and that was being investigated by law enforcement.

He met criteria.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Ignore the obvious, that is certainly your prerogative. There is a history between the Hospital and the Police and that is evident in the comments by medical and the Lt. Had there not been issues in the past the situation would have gone differently.


You would require more information than what you've provided if the shoe were on the other foot and you damn well know it.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Who determines if an arrest is lawful or not?
and no, you are having issues reading as you keep making the same argument about policy when in fact the pd policy was different than the hospitals at the time this occurred.

What part of that confuses you?



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven

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.


Are the police the ones responsible for obtaining a blood sample for CDL holders?

That seems kind of odd to me.


Zaph is correct in general however SLCPD policy requires a blood draw for law enforcement purposes be done by a member of their blood draw unit. That info is also included in the full CPRB release.

I'm not certain what your point is in bringing up police department policy here...

Is there some statute that requires the police department to obtain a blood sample for any CDL holder involved in an accident?



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Ignore the obvious, that is certainly your prerogative. There is a history between the Hospital and the Police and that is evident in the comments by medical and the Lt. Had there not been issues in the past the situation would have gone differently.


You would require more information than what you've provided if the shoe were on the other foot and you damn well know it.


Not really... the entire situation has to be reviewed from what the officer perceived since their use of force is being called into question.

Arresting a nurse is not something that happens, even in rare circumstances. The fact the Lt. went down this road coupled with his comments tells me there is a prior history between the Hospital and the PD. As I stated before, speaking from my own experience, I have witnessed the very same thing. Up to and including one incident where a prosecuting attorney had to respond to the hospital and explain to medical staff in the Er that regardless of what their policy state, they had a warrant and anyone refusing to comply would be arrested.

Hospitals have a bad habit of going overboard when it comes to treating patients. Policies that say patients cant be in handcuffs to how law enforcement is to act when patients are in custody are nice but dont apply to law enforcement, no matter how much hospitals whine about it.

Hospital's own policies are generally the cause of these situations. They need to stick to patient care and leave criminal law to the professionals.
edit on 14-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

The requirement, per the FMCSA, is that if a driver is involved in an accident that results in an injury or fatality, and one of the vehicles is towed, then they have 8 hours to undergo an alcohol test, and 32 hours to undergo a drug test.

It's up to the company that the truck is owned by, or leased to, to set that up. In some instances, the collection is done by the police that are investigating the accident. If the driver is conscious, they will sometimes administer a breathalyzer top do the alcohol test, and allow the drug test to be done elsewhere. That takes care of the alcohol portion, just in case there is nowhere nearby that can do the test within the time frame.
edit on 9/14/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven

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.


Are the police the ones responsible for obtaining a blood sample for CDL holders?

That seems kind of odd to me.


Zaph is correct in general however SLCPD policy requires a blood draw for law enforcement purposes be done by a member of their blood draw unit. That info is also included in the full CPRB release.

I'm not certain what your point is in bringing up police department policy here...

Is there some statute that requires the police department to obtain a blood sample for any CDL holder involved in an accident?


Federal law yes.
In Utah its a matter of course to obtain blood draws for accidents with fatalities.

Finally asked as to why police are the ones doing a blood draw. I was explaining why that is - SLCPD policy.

Had you followed the conversation my response would make sense to you.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

How does that apply to owner / operators? Free lance so to speak, if it applies.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Not really... the entire situation has to be reviewed from what the officer perceived since their use of force is being called into question.

Arresting a nurse is not something that happens, even in rare circumstances. The fact the Lt. went down this road coupled with his comments tells me there is a prior history between the Hospital and the PD. As I stated before, speaking from my own experience, I have witnessed the very same thing. Up to and including one incident where a prosecuting attorney had to respond to the hospital and explain to medical staff in the Er that regardless of what their policy state, they had a warrant and anyone refusing to comply would be arrested.

Hospitals have a bad habit of going overboard when it comes to treating patients. Policies that say patients cant be in handcuffs to how law enforcement is to act when patients are in custody are nice but dont apply to law enforcement, no matter how much hospitals whine about it.

Hospital's own policies are generally the cause of these situations. They need to stick to patient care and leave criminal law to the professionals.


So nothing is confirmed. It's your opinion that there is a history of interference with police investigations by this particular hospital based on anecdotal evidence.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FraggleRock

No its based on the comments by the nurse and the Lt., coupled with what occurred.

This hospitals policy has a bad habit of interfering with my law. What would you draw from that comment coupled with the nurse stating the leaders of both are butting heads?

My own experiences tell me not to trust hospital staff solely for what occurred in any given situation as they have bad habit of omitting key information, as the nurse and her lawyer did in this case.
edit on 14-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


No, he did not meet the criteria, that has been well established now. The blood draw was not lawful under Utah law.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra


No, he did not meet the criteria, that has been well established now. The blood draw was not lawful under Utah law.


We are talking about HIPAA, not the blood draw. Any chance you can pay attention so you dont constantly derail whats being discussed. You stated the nurse wasnt going to vi0ooalte HIPAA. I provided the HIPAA law and state law to show how wrong you are.

The nurse should have disclosed immediately a blood draw was done for the patient - She didnt.
You claimed HIPAA prevented her from disclosing it - your wrong.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


The police are not exempt from HIPAA laws, they are allowed exceptions. Police can't just arbitrarily demand medical information without a warrant, unless there are specific special circumstances. In this case, they didn't have the right legal circumstances to get the information in question.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


This hospitals policy has a bad habit of interfering with my law.


Sounds like a headstrong officer talking out his own backside. Couple that with an offhand comment from a nurse pertaining to the context of this singular situation where superiors on either side were butting heads. That's hardly a recipe for this hospital having a history of interfering with police investigations.

My own experiences tell me a lot about law enforcement but I'm always told not to judge the profession by the individual. So I won't apply anecdotal evidence to judge this situation.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yeah ok whatever... Read the laws I linked.

The patient was involved in an assault by the driver who was fleeing from police. When you use your vehicle to purposely cause injury to someone else it is a crime. As part of that investigation law enforcement meets criteria under HIPAA for PHI disclosure.

You need to get over the fact the police wanted blood and understand the fact the hospital already obtained it for treatment. That fact, that they did a blood draw, is covered by HIPAA and state law as information that can be released to law enforcement.

The nurse should have immediately disclosed that instead of making the officer wait for over an hour and a half. She didnt disclose it until she was taken into custody and only as a last ditch effort to get out of the situation she helped create.

The results of the blood test can be subpoenaed. All they need to tell law enforcement is blood was taken.

Thats it.




top topics



 
126
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join