Nurse forcibly arrested for not allowing cop to draw blood of unconscious patient(Video)

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Wolfenz

Its NOT Hospital law but POLICY.

Policy is subordinate to state and federal law.

As for the rest its why I said I want more info to place everything into proper context.

well that what i ment policy thanks

Not trying to be a dick but their is a major difference between a law and a policy.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: redhorse

Every single law enfocement agency I have ever dealt with have policy and procedures / standard operating guidelines. They also have policies / guidelines that allows the overriding of a policy based on situation specific instances and usually must come from a supervisor / duty officer.

In this case a Lt.

As an example we have a guideline that says officers will not shoot from a moving vehicle. However our training includes shooting from a moving vehicle on the off chance an incident occurs where that is the only viable option available.

Could you cite the law that allows a blood draw from a non fault, witnessed, cdl driver?

I am honestly curious. I have never heard of such a thing being allowed to a witnessed no fault accident, particularly when the hospital is giving the advice to not do it.

I am training with law enforcement agents on a regular basis (well not really we teach kids grappling)

Also I would love to know what state trains you to shoot out of a moving vehicle, and how often you practice this type of marksmanship. As a marksmanship hobbyist of three fun races I can say I have never heard of anything like that accept in police academy movies.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yeah I was pointing out that warrantless blood searches are permissible if they meet an exigent circumstance exception. Only citing one part of the scotus ruling gives the impression a warrant is required in all cases when it is not.

Secondly truck (commercial 10K+ weight) drivers fall under different laws than standard drivers. That includes reduced protections under the 4th amendment.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Liquesence


If the victim was in fact a suspect under arrest then the exigent circumstance exception would definitely apply. Since the victim was not under arrest, it does not. He would need a warrant before drawing/obtaining a blood sample.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Oooooo.

I take back my previous compliment. Any thought that you might actually understand what exigent circumstances actually entail just went right out the window.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Liquesence

Ahem.

1. The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests. Pp. 2172-2186.

(a) Taking a blood sample or administering a breath test is a search governed by the Fourth Amendment. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 616-617, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639; Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767-768, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908. These searches may nevertheless be exempt from the warrant requirement if they fall within, as relevant here, the exception for searches conducted incident to a lawful arrest. This exception applies categorically, rather than on a case-by-case basis. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. ___, ___, n. 3, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1559, n. 3, 185 L.Ed.2d 696. Pp. 2173-2174.

e.g., where substances other than alcohol impair the driver's ability to operate a car safely, or where the subject is unconscious — nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception if it applies.

we need to have more info as to what was going on that the police needed his blood. Secondly as I state commercial truck drivers fall within their own category with their own rules / laws as defined by the federal government.

From the SCOTUS decision, which you also bolded:

the exception for searches conducted incident to a lawful arrest.

Was the driver, who was, seemingly, not at fault in the accident under arrest?

Was he able to give consent? Was there a warrant to draw his blood?

The hospital policy forbids drawing blood from an unconscious patient, unless there is prior consent, a warrant or the patient is under arrest.

See again:

The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests.

a reply to: redhorse

No he wasn't.

By all accounts, the officer is trained in how to draw blood. He was demanding she give him access to the patient.

a reply to: luthier

FMCSA - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Specifically 382.303 which deals with mandatory testing of commercial drivers in post accident situations, regardless of fault.

The law also provides for federal preemption of state and local laws and allows and in some cases require employed drivers to submit to testing at random or any policy established by a trucking company in compliance with FMCSA laws.

As I said we need more info before condemning what occurred. From what I am seeing the blood test was a lawful requirement given federal law governing commercial truck drivers and is exempt from Hospital policy and state laws. It would also be considered an exemption under the scotus ruling for no warrant blood draws.

Post-accident alcohol and drug testing is required for Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) accidents occurring within the U.S. and on segments of interstate movements into Canada between the U.S.-Canadian border and the first physical delivery location of a Canadian consignee. The FHWA further believes its regulations require testing for segments of interstate movements out of Canada between the last physical pick-up location of a Canadian consignor and the U.S.-Canadian border. The same would be true for movements between the U.S.-Mexican border and a point in Mexico.

a reply to: Liquesence
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

See my post here for federal law on commercial truck drivers. It is an exception to the scotus ruling.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

OK, I understand.

My thought on this is since when do police demand blood taken from innocent unconscious victims of a wreck that they may have caused, no matter the victims job. The whole think stinks to high heaven. IMO they were covering their own backsides and that opinion is coming from someone who always supports law enforcement. If I had to guess, that is why the officer was so out of control.

a reply to: Blaine91555

It is an exception to the scotus ruling.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

I get that, but don't you think this smells a little funny? It's not always about what someone can do legally, but about the why.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Xcathdra

I get that, but don't you think this smells a little funny? It's not always about what someone can do legally, but about the why.

Post-accident alcohol and drug testing is required for Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) accidents occurring within the U.S. and on segments of interstate movements into Canada between the U.S.-Canadian border and the first physical delivery location of a Canadian consignee. The FHWA further believes its regulations require testing for segments of interstate movements out of Canada between the last physical pick-up location of a Canadian consignor and the U.S.-Canadian border. The same would be true for movements between the U.S.-Mexican border and a point in Mexico.

in this case local police policy, hospital policy, local law, state law are preempted by federal law and therefore cannot be applied to this situation. This federal law extends the authority to enforce this federal law to local and state police.

a reply to: Blaine91555


This is a load of crap, they violate rights then come out and say "We are sorry" "we learned" And for the lady in this video to admit it was an unjust arrest means it was in fact kidnapping and assault and he should be charged. And him saying "trust our police department" ? really? the same police department that unlawfully and forcibly arrested a nurse? Also very telling is if this was a black nurse it would lead every national news channel and there would be protests and riots, but, because she is white it is mostly a local story with no real outrage.

a reply to: norhoc

try again...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1. She should not have been arrested. That was overkill. There was no obstruction and she was following what her job entails.

2. Blood needs to be drawn quickly to check for BAC levels. I know this because my father was involved in an accident where a death occurred and the blood was a huge part of his trial. I learned a lot from the specialist we used in Miami.

3. The gentlemen driving was involved in an accident where he was fleeing the officers and someone died. This was not just to check if he was drunk from weaving in traffic and hit a parked car where he was knocked out.

4. As far as I know Commercial drivers are held to a different standard as described in the thread and there are different regulations. It is a Federal/State/Local law issue once again.

Bottom line - the officer did NOT need to arrest her. There was no reason for it and he should be suspended WOP but not fired.

originally posted by: craig732

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Hypothetical question, Do you have a right to resist arrest in these type of scenarios?.

www.constitution.org...“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”

I hope to hell nobody reads this bullsnip you posted. The very first "quote" in that discussion is a complete and total fabrication. It appears literally nowhere in the actual case law or court opinion on the case, and everything falls apart even further after that.

a reply to: matafuchs

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Lurker1

You are right and it seems that people are forgetting that there was a very simple way to obtain the blood if it was such a critical thing for them to have.

Instead of running roughshod over the nurse, arresting her, abusing her, and making the collected blood inadmissible, all they had to do was obtain a warrant.

They claimed they didn't know the hospital had drawn blood. BS. The blood team was established for blood draws in the field when no healthcare professional or phlebotomist is available. The blood draw team was not established for victims or suspects that are in the hospital. You have enough nurses, doctors, and phlebotomist to obtain blood at anytime. The first thing they do when a patient is brought into the ER, when unconscious, is a IV line is placed and blood is drawn.

Our labs have obtained blood from a previously drawn specimen on numerous occasions. Sometimes the hospital is stingy with the amount they give us, put we take what we can get. And of course it depends on the reason for the blood, because chain of custody plays a role here as well.

I can think of several reasons why this hospital would not allow the officer to draw the blood in this particular situation.

I would love to hear what a lawyer, DA or a SA has to say about this.

I can tell you that this incident has me concerned, that is why I have put our SA's number on speed dial on my phone.

We have had run ins and odd circumstances come up before, and we are blessed to have a SA that is accessible. If I ever run into this kind of situation, I know who I am going to call.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

www.abovetopsecret.com...