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

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist
You know that there will indeed be mandatory inservices up the wazoo in almost every medical facility.

Remember the case that involved EMTALA, the Insulin mishap, and the active shooter in the workplace news reports? Yep. the inservices will be in the works very shortly.

I know there will be inservices and policy reviews for my job as well. Even though the present rules are pretty cut and dry. If there is a policy or procedure snafu, or if a situation makes them questionable, there are people in place, right up to the SA office, that can and will deal with it necessary.

I don't know why no one is talking about the restrictions in place for an unconscious patient in the burn unit, or the fact that the officer should never have engaged the nurse on this level. She made it clear that she could not go against hospital policy, and had put him in contact with someone that had the authority to do what he wanted. But he refused to wait, because he knew he was wrong, and the administrator would not give him what he wanted, so he thought he could bully the nurse into submission.

Also it seems few people are talking about his threat made post event, where he says he thinks he might bring only indigent patients to their ER in the future, and he will take "the good" patients to another hospital.

It is obvious in his other job as a paramedic, he thinks he is God also. He thinks he has the power to judge who is good and who is bad. All round, he appears to be a disgusting individual that has no business in any position that involves interaction with the public, or public trust.

a reply to: Xcathdra


There was no reasonable suspicion that justified the officers needing a blood test in first place.

Cops can't just go around drawing and testing unconscious people's blood, just because they're unconscious, without some kind of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

Jeeze, dude! Give it up! You're arguments are getting more and more unreasonable. You've been proven wrong time and time again, not by ATS posters, but by UTAH's professional representatives.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra


NO! Reasonable suspicion is the criteria!

Or if the person gives consent. He was unconscious and therefore implied consent to the tests is applied.

Being unconscious is "implied consent"??????

WTF

a reply to: windword

41-6a-522. Person incapable of refusal.
Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra


NO! Reasonable suspicion is the criteria!

Or if the person gives consent. He was unconscious and therefore implied consent to the tests is applied.

Being unconscious is "implied consent"??????

WTF

Yes - hence the term "implied" consent.

a reply to: windword

If he was a truck driver involved in a fatal accident, then under DOT rules, they're required to test for alcohol within 8 hours, and drugs within 32. Whether he was at fault for the accident or not.

§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:

www.ecfr.gov...

a reply to: norhoc

Fair enough.. If your ever interested in learning the law come on back and join the conversation.


a reply to: Zaphod58
I already provided them with that info and for some reason they ignore it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

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:

Those police officers were not the semi-truck driver's employer.

a reply to: Zaphod58

§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


Each EMPLOYER, not police. Police need reasonable suspicion or PC

a reply to: norhoc

or consent, which was given under Utah law.

a reply to: norhoc

a reply to: windword

The employer doesn't do the testing. I'm a truck driver, and I've worked in the Safety Department for a company, trust me, I know this. The only way that the employer is going to perform the testing is if the accident occurs within less than 300 miles from one of their terminals. And even then they're going to use a contractor that does the testing for them when they perform physicals for new drivers. The employer is responsible for setting up the testing, but the testing is done at the local level. It can be done at the hospital by hospital staff, under the supervision of the police, or it can be done at an emergency clinic such as Concentra. Trucking companies don't have places within 8 hours of where all their trucks are. We have terminals scattered all over the country, but we're usually 24-48 hours from the nearest one at any point.

I was recently in an accident that luckily didn't fall under a DOT reportable accident, but if it had, I would have had to go to the nearest place available to do the testing and have it done. The police may or may not have chosen to be there to witness the testing, but it would have been their choice.

Do you guys honestly think that every trucking company has somewhere to perform drug and alcohol testing in within 8 hours of basically every major city in the country? No. Of course they don't. They're responsible for ordering the driver to testing, and setting up and paying for the testing. They're not responsible for performing the testing.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Have you not read the entire law, or have you not heard that the police, mayor, crb , lawyers , basically everyone else has already said this was an unjustified arrest and implied consent laws did not apply here? I really don't know what part of all that you guys are not getting.

a reply to: Zaphod58


As soon as the company that hired the semi driver is notified of the accident, they can order/authorize the hospital to test the patient for alcohol, as the law requires.

Do we know that this didn't happen?

a reply to: windword



Also what everyone making arguments for the police behavior is omitting is blood had already been drawn when the patient got to the hospital, all police had to do was get a warrant for the blood that was already drawn, but officer payne told another officer he did not think he could get a warrant, hence the strong arm tactic applied.

a reply to: norhoc

Yes, I'm well aware that they said that, and I saw that they apologized. I'm not defending the actions of the cop. The point that I'm making is that a truck driver is required to submit to testing, and if he wants to keep his CDL, has no choice, whether he's conscious or not. The police had the right to ask for the blood to be drawn, as a result of this being a DOT accident, and to get it drawn. But he went too far in his actions.

a reply to: norhoc

No but you can stop replying to people, like you keep saying you're going to do.

@ Z and X- exactly. The driver doesn't get told "hey come back to the distribution center we need to draw blood." The employer tells them to go do it and pays for it to be done. It's on the employer to make it happen, not to literally do it themselves.

I'm amazed that this aspect has gone on for so many pages. The entire thing is murky as hell because there's about 15 different laws, policies, and regulations in play. I don't entirely fault the cop for not knowing what the hell he was talking about, but him being unaware of a policy that's been in place for over a year that directly pertains to his job is inexcusable. I don't fault the nurse for not being entirely versed in all the laws and regulations in place. I don't fault her for being wrong about how she was right.

I fault the cop entirely for deciding that he needed to escalate the situation to the point of arresting the nurse for no reason.

a reply to: windword

I don't know what happened with the company, but they're notified more or less immediately. With the accident I had recently, I called the company within about 20 minutes, and the first thing they asked was "Why didn't you call sooner". I don't know what the actions were in this case, but the officer did go too far in his actions.

a reply to: Zaphod58


"had a right to ask" . Exactly Ask not demand and then arrest a nurse for not submitting to his demand, he was not giving a lawful order