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: 64
126
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven
Stop going in circles. Just answer this one fundamental question:

What do you believe the justification for a warrantless blood draw was?

Exigent circumstance is an exception to 4th Amendment protections against warrantless search/seizure. Exigent circumstance is not in and of itself a justification for a warrantless search/seizure.

Again, give us a reasonable justification for the search to begin with - the foundation that must be laid prior to exigent circumstance even coming into play - what justified a search and seizure?


Not going in circles however you are failing to understand the post and the law.

The blood draw is not material to violation of the 2 laws cited. By refusing access (obstruction) to the patient she obstructed. Was the patient conscious at the time the detective showed up? Could the patient have been given consent if the detective had access to the patient? What was the patients condition at the time?

By refusing to comply with the arrest she resisted.

This is not a hard concept to understand. Medical staff are not law enforcement and cant decide if an officers actions are relevant to the situation, let alone try and argue criminal law with them. They chart their objections and move on from there. Aside from a patients life being in imminent jeopardy medical staff has no right to interfere with an investigation and even then some circumstances will allow law enforcement to disregard medical staff objections (dying declarations / another party in imminent danger / etc).

Are you understanding what i am saying now?

Explain how the nurse has obstructed, given that the definition you've quoted is:

An actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constitutes a criminal offense

The patient is not a suspect in any crime, so the nurse cannot be obstructing investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment.

The only other involved party is the dead suspect, which for obvious reasons none of those apply.

So tell us, who was the beneficiary of her obstruction?

Now you suddenly argue that the blood draw isn't relevant, after going on and on about exigent circumstance. You are incapable of answering the fundamental question behind even invoking exigent circumstance: whether there was probable cause to investigate the patient. Your repeated inability to provide this has made this a gigantic waste of time.




posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RadioRobert
Was the patient still unconscious at the time the detective was at the Hospital?


All reports say "no". Do you have evidence that would convince a reasonable person otherwise? Did the charming detective?

Utah's implied consent law doesn't give the detective the right to draw his blood without warrant for this investigation. There was no reason for a reasonable person to suspect he was guilty of a crime. They should have applied to a judge who would've told them the same thing. Being the victim of a crime doesn't provide cause for non consensual and warrantless search. You don't forfeit your rights because you're a crime victim. Your line of reasoning is absurd.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: diggindirt
Let me ask you this one more time---it's been asked over and over and yet you avoid answering---

Actually I have answered it. You and some others apparently refused to read or you didnt understand it.
Why didnt the nurse tell the detective when he first made contact they already took blood? A question asked that you guys have refused to answer.

This has been answered repeatedly: nobody asked.

It's generally evident to most reasonable people that hospitals are going to do blood work on people who are admitted with major trauma. Why didn't he ask?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Exactly.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Except in this instance, and the laws in question, places responsibility of the person reasonably knowing the person making the arrest is a police officer.

In this case she knew the detective was a police officer and dealt with him for several hours before she was taken into custody. So your offered defense doesnt hold any legal weight.

Several hours... as noted in Birchfield:

Nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.

Note here that these are exclusive - either there is time to get a warrant, or there is not and an exigent circumstance exception may exist.

Given that time elapsed was "several hours" there was no urgency, as a warrant could have been obtained within those several hours.

Thus, exigent circumstance does not apply. Thus, his demand was unlawful. Thus, the arrest of the nurse was unlawful.

Thanks for playing.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I had a big long reply here, then I accidentally closed the window. Doh!!!

Not wanting to repeat everything, I will just leave it at this. Xcathdra is wrong. The two investigations have completed, and have concluded both officers were in the wrong. The Police Civilian Review board, in no uncertain terms, state that the "law" says blood cannot be taken without one of the three conditions being met. In this case they were not met. It even goes on to say that Payne being on the "blood draw" team, should have known this and even "more so" than the nurse or civilians.

You can read the news article, and the reports from the investigations here:

fox13now.com...

www.slcdocs.com...

localtvkstu.files.wordpress.com...

There is no argument now. I don't think anyone can argue that the officers were acting within the law any more.
edit on 21-9-2017 by MrRCflying because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying


Thanks for that post . I guarantee that xcath will still argue he was right lol



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying


WOW! everything xcath argued is shot down in this , lol

-- NO implied consent- Wrong Xcath

--Officer should have known policy- wrong again xcath

-- She accurately stated that the policy she showed him had been agreed to between the department and hospital- Wrong again xcath

-- interfering is a misdemeanor punishable by a citation NOT ARREST- and she didn't even interfere

-- "other than screaming and yelling, she did not fight officer so no resisting arrest- wrong again xcath



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

Exactly. I wanted to post some quotes from the PDF, but I can't seem to convert the PDF to an editable form to copy and paste the lines. If anyone else can, it would be appreciated.

One other thing it clears up is the report clearly states the hospital policy aligns with law. No denying it. It was not just policy that could be worked around.
edit on 21-9-2017 by MrRCflying because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
nypost.com... well now the officer wants to apologize to the nurse

The Salt Lake City cop who was caught on video dragging a nurse from a hospital and cuffing her now wants to apologize for his actions, according to a report. “Jeff would love the chance to sit down and apologize for what happened here,” attorney Greg Skordas said about his client, Detective Jeff Payne, KUTV reported. “If he could do this over he would do it over differently,” he added. “There is no question that Jeff made a mistake. I can understand the public being upset this was a troubling event.” Meanwhile, it has emerged that Payne was previously reprimanded for sexually harassing a female co-worker, according to police documents.
so he wants to apologize for his conduct and how poorly he handled the situation

nurse won this big time and the city is lucky that as of yet she has yet to decide to sue . and the police cheif is still deciding weather or not to fire the officer ,his LT is still on leave



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying


It also said 'she accurately stated the agreement was active and current between the PD and Hospital ' unlike xcath's assertion she was lying about that. I already know xcath will say this is just the PCRB this is not the police investigation and he will wait for the police investigation.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
www.sltrib.com... -blood/ they are also now changing the law and clarifying with legiislation when blood draws can occur so something like this does not happen again

Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, noting that consent for blood draws has become a state and national issue, said the bill should be a priority. “It important for us to show the public that when there is a high-profile incident like this that really outraged a lot of people, including myself, that we’re addressing that,” Weiler said. Committee members hope to have a draft of the bill ready to review by November. The legislative session begins in January. Wubbels’ attorney, Karra Porter, said Wednesday that she is not opposed to legislation on the issue but that “the law already clearly prohibits what the officers were doing and that didn’t stop them.”
so even with all of this she is still skeptical that police will listen to the new law as they blatantly ignored the old one

one more snippet from same source

Payne insisted he had implied consent to get the blood and eventually arrested Wubbels. He handcuffed her and placed her in a police car outside the hospital, then released her after about 20 minutes. Charges were never filed against the nurse. Under Utah law, motorists are considered to have given implied consent to tests to determine their blood alcohol level, but an officer must have reasonable grounds to believe they were driving under the influence.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc

Likely. However the lead investigator for the PCRB is a 22 year veteran of the FBI, and now works for Salt Lake City Human Resources Department. Hard to argue with someone with credentials like that.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


I am not normally one to call for someones head, but due to the fact he is wearing a badge, and what he did and his total lack of knowledge of the law this guy should be fired and charged for what he did here. Essentially he illegally kidnapped her by force while armed. And she should sue the hell out of the PD seeing as this order came from the top down, the Watch commander and Lt that were ordering him should be fired as well. He should not be entrusted with upholding the law if he does not even know the law he is sworn to uphold



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

Just PCRB report, but the results are pretty straight forward.
The fact that the detective and lieutenant are protected by Garrity in the report is sort of ironic in this case. Also means criminal charges may follow, which is encouraging.

Edit: I forgot the best part because I was reading replies. They actually admit they don't have probable cause to take it to a judge, but still think they can force a blood draw. How are these guys stil employed?
edit on 21-9-2017 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying
I couldn't get it to convert to pdf either, but it says just about the same thing that many have been saying throughout this thread.

I agree with RalagaNarHallas when he posted

so even with all of this she is still skeptical that police will listen to the new law as they blatantly ignored the old one


I think these 64 pages have already proven that that mindset is extremely strong in some people, even some law enforcement officers.

www.slcdocs.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
www.transportation.gov...

§ 40.277 Are alcohol tests other than saliva or breath permitted under these regulations? No, other types of alcohol tests (e,g., blood and urine) are not authorized for testing done under this part. Only saliva or breath for screening tests and breath for confirmation tests using approved devices are permitted.
if im reading this right which i very well may not be it seems that at least for tests for alcohol you can only use saliva or breath for a post accident test,so if the officers may have thought he was drunk and wanted to test him under DOT regs they may have been in error.
www.transportation.gov...
from same document

Example to Paragraph (b)(1 ): An employee enters the test site for both a drug and an alcohol test. Normally, the collector would wait until the BAT had completed the alcohol test process before beginning the drug test process. However, there are some situations in which an exception to this normal practice would be reasonable. One such situation might be if several people were waiting for the BAT to conduct alcohol tests, but a drug testing collector in the same facility were free. Someone waiting might be able to complete a drug test without unduly delaying his or her alcohol test. Collectors and BATs should work toge ther, however, to ensure that post -accident and reasonable suspicion alcohol tests happen as soon as possible (e.g., by moving the employee to the head of the line for alcohol tests). (2) If the employee needs medical attention (e.g., an injured employee in an emergency medical facility who is required to have a post -accident test), do not delay this treatment to collect a specimen. (3) You must not collect, by catheterization or other means, urine from an unconscious employee to conduct a drug test under this part. Nor may you catheterize a conscious employee. However, you must inform an employee who normally voids through self -catheterization that the employee is required to provide a specimen in that manner.


so this snippet seems to imply that if a patient is injured to NOT delay treatment to obtain a specimen ,and that you cant take urine from an unconscious patient it would make sense that they would not recommend or allow taking of blood from an unconscious person ,keep in mind this is the federal regs for post accident testing

it seems that at least in my layperson view on the matter that the gold standard of post accident testing is a urine test not a blood test? perhaps Zaphoid could comment on it as hes a truck driver and possibly clarify my ignorance on this issue .are blood tests even used for post accident testing or is it just a Urine test?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrRCflying
a reply to: norhoc

Likely. However the lead investigator for the PCRB is a 22 year veteran of the FBI, and now works for Salt Lake City Human Resources Department. Hard to argue with someone with credentials like that.


This! This kinda throws out the idea that PCRB is a bunch of citizens who don't know the law, eh? But I'm sure the sole defender of this scumbag will continue to try to say he's really the good guy and the nurse is just a cop hater. It's the only mantra left to him.

It is a little late for the dude to be deciding that he needs to apologize. Maybe he can write up an apology while he's visiting the crossbar hotel.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: norhoc
"-- interfering is a misdemeanor punishable by a citation NOT ARREST- and she didn't even interfere 

-- "other than screaming and yelling, she did not fight officer so no resisting arrest- wrong again xcath "

I'm surprised the board doesn't also note that her limited evasion takes place as he says, "we're done" and aggressively tries to manhandle her [I] before [/I] notifying her she's being placed under arrest.
She can't be legally "resisting arrest" if she has no idea she's been placed under arrest. It'd be like getting in a high speed chase and not using your lights. You might nail them for speed, reckless, not using an indicator, etc but you're never going to get the county attorney onboard for flight or evasion if you didn't signal for them to stop.

These guys were both incredibly poorly trained or dumb as posts.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
Most substances are detectable in urine for a much longer time period than they are detectable in the blood.

The problem is that it takes more complex testing to determine the time frame when the substance was consumed, when using just a urine sample.

If a blood example is available, it makes the process of judging the most likely time of consumption faster, easier, and more accurate.

Some substance will show up in the urine for days, weeks, sometimes months. So having a substance present in the urine doesn't always reflect the level of impairment that may or may not be present in the person being tested.



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join