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

a reply to: luthier

So no personal experience or formal training.

speaking of your bs...

a reply to: Xcathdra


I know a policy is subordinate to the law Genius, I also know you need PC to demand a blood test you are being selective and deceptive in the SCOTUS cases and USC's you are posting, no sense in me reposting the sections clearly stating PC is needed as they have already been brought up. Even the police department said at the scene to each other as well as publicly at the press conference they were wrong and the arrest was unjustified. Why are you not willing to admit the same. Take the lead from Amptah and stop posting you are coming across worse and worse.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

This is why when people who arent in law enforcement / judicial system engage in these conversation it becomes repetitive. It has already been explained how it works. The detective was their to take a blood sample and was denied access to the patient.

You do not understand how laws work let alone the difference between laws and policies. You need to learn the basics before attempting to make an argument based on incorrect information and incorrect interpretations.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well if anything other than a trained medical professional were to attempt to take blood then that's a breach of professional conduct. It's not the Police job to take blood that would be a nurse, forensic or otherwise, and at an appropriate time decided by a medical professional.

Which is exactly what the nurse in question was attempting to explain to the belligerent fool before being assaulted and accosted in such a horrendous manner.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's the Web man. I think your a sham to be honest. One of my best friends is a cop and ex paratrooper. We just talked about this last night.

There was no resisting arrest and he reacted out of anger. Something an officer of his rank and age shouldn't be doing. No matter how inconvenient dealing with a hospital who also has federally regulated laws (which here is your showing... are laws not policy) to follow.

Lol I can't wait to check back in a couple weeks. Especially if you believe the way he handied the arrest itself is OK.

a reply to: norhoc

I now seriously doubt you were in federal law enforcement. Or the agency you were in had no dealings with commercial motor vehicle laws.

The scotus ruling flat out states warrantless blood draw is permissible if it meets one of the establishes exemptions. Commercial motor vehicle law would be one of those exemptions.

a reply to: andy06shake

The detective in question is a part of their blood draw unit and is certified as a phlebotomist.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And the section of title 49 which deals with drug testing is stated as a regulation beholden to the employer, not local or state law enforcement. It is not a law in the sense that local officials are the ones responsible for its enforcement unless there is a criminal charge against the driver, in which case they have their own interest to start and would never have to worry about DOT regulations.

The police do not act in the capacity for the DOT, they have their own enforcement.

ETA Link:
Title 49, Section 40

a reply to: luthier

What ever works for you.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I have credentials and know how law works and ,again, and am telling you even the police department and officers on the scene admitted they were in the wrong here( see the post of the detectives body cam excerpts) The detective and supervisors were saying this was not "going to stick" while the police department clearly said publicly this was an unjustified arrest . So why can't you admit the same?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Blaine91555

Maybe we should get more information then to put everything into context instead of fixating on just the nurse eh?

The nurse and how she was mistreated is the topic? Was what happened right or wrong and should the officer be punished or even fired for his treatment of the nurse is the topic.

You made your point already. I think everyone gets what you posted.

The nurse is actually a bit of a hero for standing up to an out of control officer and doing her job as laid out by her employer and she's not a truck driver.

The officer could have easily handled this in a different way with a good outcome and at the same time gotten his sample. He chose not to and lost control of his emotions, which is scary when it's an authority with a gun who has issues. So why did he loose control? Could it be his superiors pressured him out of worry about the soon to happen law suit because a high speed chase made the driver a victim?

I think those are valid observations and questions.

As I mentioned, I normally side with law enforcement. Not this time. I hope the nurse can retire off her civil settlement.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It does.

By the way just got a text. The procedure in that circumstance would have been for him to call a superior, make a report, and wait for the go ahead to make an arrest and find a nurse to draw the blood.

But, since it was witnessed and an effect of a hit and run from a high speed pursuit what this was...in reality was a hail Mary to hope he was on something for insurance reasons.

Lol.

a reply to: Xcathdra



It doesn't matter that you "seriously doubt" that I was Federal LE. It doesn't change the reality that I was and that you are wrong here.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Whats the bet that counts for exactly squat down to the fact that he did not work or is in the employment of the facility in question? Hence is in no way authorized to carry out what still amounts to a medical procedure.

You do realize that even if the fool had managed to take blood it would probably be inadmissible in court down to the manner in which it was obtained?

This was simply a pointless act of aggression by a figure of authority that should darn well have known better, stands to reason really.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AMPTAH

Please dont comment on law enforcement in generalities. You look like an uneducated fool when you do not to mention the info you are providing is based on your opinion and not fact.

You can help to educate us all by including a mention of some "other tools" that the officer has that would enable him to do his job, rather than attacking people with statements like "uneducated fool". If you are that educated, share your wisdom, rather than make snide remarks!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone
a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Accidents involving commercial trucks require the driver be tested.

The part of FMCSA that you quote from though, is this:

Question 5: What post-accident alcohol and drug testing requirements are there for foreign drivers involved in accidents occurring outside the United States?
Guidance:
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.

Further, the ACTUAL statute, is a requirement of the employer NOT a Federal, State or Municipal enforcement agency as per. Which states:

382.303   Post-accident testing.
(a) As soon as practicable following an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road in commerce, each employer shall test for alcohol for each of its surviving drivers:
(1) Who was performing safety-sensitive functions with respect to the vehicle, if the accident involved the loss of human life; or
(2) Who receives a citation within 8 hours of the occurrence under State or local law for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident, if the accident involved:
(i) Bodily injury to any person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or
(ii) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle.
(b) As soon as practicable following an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road in commerce, each employer shall test for controlled substances for each of its surviving drivers:
(1) Who was performing safety-sensitive functions with respect to the vehicle, if the accident involved the loss of human life; or
(2) Who receives a citation within thirty-two hours of the occurrence under State or local law for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident, if the accident involved:
(i) Bodily injury to any person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or
(ii) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle.
(c) The following table notes when a post-accident test is required to be conducted by paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2) of this section:

No citation on the truck driver. No arrest of the truck driver. The truck driver was the one who was struck, not the offending motorist. No probable cause. The cop is an idiot.

What you've outlined is a part of the requirement to determine what actions to take on foreign driver's, not US drivers, nice try though.

a reply to: alphabetaone

It was a hail Mary to avoid insurance payouts. Pretty obvious. They got caught because Bruno went rogue.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I've been trying to explain the difference and haven't got too far. Best of luck!

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


I have credentials and know how law works and ,again, and am telling you even the police department and officers on the scene admitted they were in the wrong here( see the post of the detectives body cam excerpts) The detective and supervisors were saying this was not "going to stick" while the police department clearly said publicly this was an unjustified arrest . So why can't you admit the same?

Yes, they have said this, now that the Hospital Administrator has revised the rules, and "banned all officers" from coming to the hospital in person to collect blood.

The police dept realizes that they "need cooperation" more than "confrontation" with the health care professionals. That's the only reason they are admitting fault here. Right now, somebody has to take the fall, and it looks like Payne and Tracy are the scapegoats, when in reality it's the whole police dept that's responsible. It's their training. Their practices. Officer Payne confidently "filmed" the whole arrest, believing he was in the right, with his body cam. If an officer from that police dept will do this when he knows he's on camera, what on earth would he do off camera?

a reply to: norhoc




In Utah and throughout the United States, the police are not able to lawfully search or seize any evidence from a person without a warrant. They can only get a warrant if they could show probable cause that the evidence they are searching for is related to the crime they think the person committed.
The police officer has to sign an affidavit or do a verbal, under oath, affidavit to a judge stating the reason they need to draw blood. If they are able to establish probable cause and the judge signs it, then a valid search warrant will enable them to force somebody to have their blood drawn.
This is what usually happens in DUI cases, vehicular homicide cases or vehicular aggravated assault cases. It is possible this can be done for other types of crimes, although it is more common in cases that involve vehicles