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

a reply to: lucidclouds

Let me ask -

Is it appropriate for an officer to question a medical professional on why that medical professional used one procedure over another or should the officer recognize that medical care is best left to the person trained in it?

By the same token is it appropriate for medical staff to question an officer on their procedures as to why a blood draw is required without a warrant?

Standard procedure would be for the medical staff to object and if pushed and overruled to chart the encounter and their objections to the officer to protect themselves / hospital. The laws in question favor law enforcement in the performance of their official duties. While laws protect medical staff when push comes to shove it falls on the side of law enforcement. any action taken from that point has to be justified by law enforcement and any fallout from those actions falls squarely on law enforcement.

I trust medical staff when it comes to medical decisions.
I trust aw enforcement when it comes to legal decisions under criminal law.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AMPTAH

Hospitals cant prevent law enforcement from entering the premises while performing their official duties.

They just did.

So, the police lawyers and the hospital lawyers can meet in court and haggle it out.

It's a privilege the hospital granted to the police dept. While they must comply with the request for blood, they don't have to allow the police onto their premises for that purpose. They can just elect to send it out to the dept. They will not have the police entering the sacred space of the hospital and "disturbing the peace" of that environment by manhandling their staff, arresting nurses who are just doing their duties, and making the hospital a rowdy place where patients are convalescing. Most hospitals have "be quiet" signs.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Xcathdra
You are excusing his behavior based on the law.

What law gives justification for his behavior?

Its been provided several times now. If you arent going to read it I am not going to waste my time, again, explaining it.

you either want to learn both sides of the situation or you dont. It is entirely your choice.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
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

49 U.S. Code § 31306 - Alcohol and controlled substances testing

(2) In prescribing regulations under this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation—
(A) shall require that post-accident testing of an operator of a commercial motor vehicle be conducted when loss of human life occurs in an accident involving a commercial motor vehicle;
(B) may require that post-accident testing of such an operator be conducted when bodily injury or significant property damage occurs in any other serious accident involving a commercial motor vehicle; and
(C) shall provide an exemption from hair testing for commercial motor vehicle operators with established religious beliefs that prohibit the cutting or removal of hair.

§382.211 Refusal to submit to a required alcohol or controlled substances test.

No driver shall refuse to submit to a pre-employment controlled substance test required under §382.301, a post-accident alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.303, a random alcohol or controlled substances test required under §382.305, a reasonable suspicion alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.307, a return-to-duty alcohol or controlled substances test required under §382.309, or a follow-up alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.311. No employer shall permit a driver who refuses to submit to such tests to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.

They are in fact US laws so please stop with the false argument that they arent.

Section 382 allows for law enforcement testing during the course of an investigation to be used in place of employee testing.

No, they're not laws. They are regulations and described as such in the links you have been providing. It has been established that the DOT has lawful authority and therefore can enforce its regulations as if they are laws. But that doesn't make them a law to be enforced by just any agent. A local law enforcement officer has no authority to enforce a regulation which only one government body, the DOT, can enforce.

Also, where in 382 explicitly calls for law enforcement to be used in place of a certified testing center or medical facility? I can't find it.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Incorrect. What Hospitals think they can do and what they can legally do are often in conflict.

they cant prevent law enforcement from doing their job.

a reply to: Xcathdra


All I want to hear is for you to answer what part of UNLAWFUL ARREST you are not getting?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I trust medical staff when it comes to medical decisions.
I trust aw enforcement when it comes to legal decisions under criminal law.

Trust no one. Ask questions. It's everybody's right. But, obey your boss. Or, quit your job.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

They are in fact federal laws.

U.S. Code: Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION

Either educate yourself or stop responding with false information.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Again, you are being either selective or deceptive, what you posted clearly says Probable Cause is needed , but you are selectively ignoring that

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


All I want to hear is for you to answer what part of UNLAWFUL ARREST you are not getting?

Based on what I saw I dont believe the arrest was unlawful. Poorly handled - yup. unlawful - nope.

As a federal agent im surprised you dont know the difference.

a reply to: Xcathdra



LEO's were asking for a violation of the law to be committed.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I trust medical staff when it comes to medical decisions.
I trust aw enforcement when it comes to legal decisions under criminal law.

Trust no one. Ask questions. It's everybody's right. But, obey your boss. Or, quit your job.

Questions are fine.. to an extent.

I am more than willing to explain things to those who arent understanding however I am not going to ignore my duties simply because of their ignorance.

a reply to: Xcathdra



It doesn't matter what you think. The department admitted it was an Unlawful Arrest

a reply to: Xcathdra


The only ones ignorant here were the police to the law

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


All I want to hear is for you to answer what part of UNLAWFUL ARREST you are not getting?

Based on what I saw I dont believe the arrest was unlawful. Poorly handled - yup. unlawful - nope.

As a federal agent im surprised you dont know the difference.

What you "believe" isn't important. It was unlawful and you've been shown that time and again even by your own sources.

As a purported Law Enforcement professional, I'm surprised you don't know the difference.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AMPTAH

Incorrect. What Hospitals think they can do and what they can legally do are often in conflict.

they cant prevent law enforcement from doing their job.

What we think we can do, is what we often actually do.

It's up to the courts to decide who is right.

Does it prevent law enforcement from doing their job, if you send them the blood instead of allowing them to pick it up in person?

No.

Law enforcement still gets their blood.

Law enforcement just doesn't get the opportunity to create a scene and make arrests to force that blood to be delivered immediately.

That's all.

a reply to: AMPTAH


WOW, I actually agree with you on this post Amptah

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra



It doesn't matter what you think. The department admitted it was an Unlawful Arrest

feel free to provide the police department statements stating that.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no law or regulation in anything that you have posted that gives justification for his behavior.

That is way his department classified it as an unlawful arrest.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


The only ones ignorant here were the police to the law

yup - what federal law enforcement agency did you work for?