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

a reply to: AMPTAH

Now that hail Mary to avoid some insurance payout to the trucker could end up with law suit money.

Here is where the unions and leo's come to save the dirty birds.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
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.

Moving the goal post now I see. His behavior has nothing to do with the fact the info I provided are in fact laws, contrary to what you were trying to claim (that they werent).

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: amazing
Here's the weird thing. I think she was in the right, but...

Why was she the only one standing up for that patient? Where were managers, doctors, supervisers, other nurses, administrators etc. ? that almost makes you think she was in the wrong, or nobody in the hospital liked her and were using her as a scapegoat or something.

Because it was her patient. I don't think you understand the role and responsibility and accountability of an RN.

But it's a team. You don't let your team mate take it like that. And it's everyone's responsibility to care for the patient. You mean the rest of the people at the hospital didn't care?

a reply to: Xcathdra


Watch the press conference

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: amazing
Here's the weird thing. I think she was in the right, but...

Why was she the only one standing up for that patient? Where were managers, doctors, supervisers, other nurses, administrators etc. ? that almost makes you think she was in the wrong, or nobody in the hospital liked her and were using her as a scapegoat or something.

Because it was her patient. I don't think you understand the role and responsibility and accountability of an RN.

But it's a team. You don't let your team mate take it like that. And it's everyone's responsibility to care for the patient. You mean the rest of the people at the hospital didn't care?

a reply to: Xcathdra


Watch the press conference

a reply to: alphabetaone

I do... I just see it differently than those who hate anything law enforcement related.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I wasn't asking to be facetious, a simple yes or no would have sufficed.

So you think this was handled well? Maybe explaining the law to the layman in charge at the hospital would have made the whole situation go over a lot easier.

Standard procedure is one thing but using common sense and courtesy can be extremely helpful in these situations. A simple explanation would have made things a lot easier. I guess you disagree.

To be honest I thought they were totally in the wrong 100% but after reading your comments I can see that the law holds up here. And just like you gave a simple explanation that changed my mind, the arresting officer could have done the same and made everything go a lot more smoothly.

You honestly don't see how this could have been handled better by the officer?

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.

University Hospital Foundation was established in 1990 as a non-profit organization (501c3) with the purpose of increasing community awareness and financial support of the University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics.

Through cultivating private donations and educating the public, the Foundation contributes to the on-going success of the University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics by supporting capital improvement projects, equipment, and programs benefiting patients and their families.

LINK

It appears to be a private hospital, which means they can require a warrant for anything right? Does that factor in at all?

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's a link describing the duties of federal regulatory agencies who oversee Transportation, specifically. How is that a law? Title 49 is part of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) which defines rules and regulations for areas that constitutional law doesn't really apply - like ensuring the fact that trucking companies aren't hiring drunks. It's up to them to enforce these regulations.

There is no way a local detective has any authority to draw blood from a driver without a criminal charge and a warrant.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: AMPTAH

Now that hail Mary to avoid some insurance payout to the trucker could end up with law suit money.

Here is where the unions and leo's come to save the dirty birds.

I think though, we may be missing the bigger story in all this noise.

According to the police report, the driver they were chasing was a reserve officer from Idaho. Fleeing other officers? Why? And why such an immediate need to prove illicit substance?

It smells like a rat being chased down by corruption.

a reply to: Xcathdra



Will that change the laws? Does who I worked for change the laws?

a reply to: norhoc

Why? The department never stated it was unlawful.

The chief apologized for handcuffing the nurse.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

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?

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that more training would be a bad idea. But calling the officer a "scapegoat" doesn't ring true to me in this case. He obviously escalated a situation unnecessarily, exercising poor judgement. IMHO a LEO is only as good as his or her judgement in a tense situation. His actions were wrong and inappropriate.

As bad as the video is, he's lucky there is a video to be seen. It would end up worse if he had intentionally switched his camera off.

I can't blame the entire dept for his actions though.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra



Will that change the laws? Does who I worked for change the laws?

No I just dont believe your claims since you have no idea about the laws in question.

a reply to: lucidclouds

I think it could have been handled better however given the position of the hospital staff an arrest seemed unavoidable.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: alphabetaone

I do... I just see it differently than those who hate anything law enforcement related.

It is possible to think this is wrong and at the same time be pro law enforcement. You're not assuming people who think this is wrong, including the Chief of Police and the head of the Citizens Review Board at the press conference are all anti law enforcement?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Private or not they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. they cant prevent entry of law enforcement who are present and doing their official duties.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Wrong again, and did you agree with my earlier post the police were the ones ignorant to the law?

a reply to: Xcathdra

You really don't think explaining the law would have swayed the nurse?