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

a reply to: norhoc


I don't think so. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure whatever blood was drawn had already been used to test for blood type, etc. If a blood sample was drawn for the trucking company, that blood would be their property. The police would need their own blood sample, I think. And, chain of custody would have to be followed, as their intent was to us the blood sample as evidence.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: norhoc
I fault the cop entirely for deciding that he needed to escalate the situation to the point of arresting the nurse for no reason.

This.

There was no reason for the cop to escalate things the way he did. He went too far with his actions.

a reply to: norhoc

And I'm not arguing that he went too far. He did. I'm simply pointing out that as a truck driver, he had to undergo testing within a certain time frame. Being unconscious, he would have to be blood tested since he couldn't do a breath test.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Wow, in that clip toward the end, when he is talking about the impact this incident will have on his gold cross job (I don't know what that is but it sounds like a longstanding relationship he has with the hospital) he eventually says he will just bring this hospital the transients and take the good patients elsewhere. What a stellar human being he is. The man who I presume was his supervisor and who talked to the nurse when she was in the car was heard on a different clip basically saying he had a longstanding issue with the hospital telling his police department "no" too often.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: norhoc

And I'm not arguing that he went too far. He did. I'm simply pointing out that as a truck driver, he had to undergo testing within a certain time frame. Being unconscious, he would have to be blood tested since he couldn't do a breath test.

That still doesn't equate to the PD having the right to demand it without probable cause or a warrant.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Under DOT rules, if a truck driver is involved in a fatal accident, or an injury accident that requires transport of someone from either vehicle to the hospital, that is cause for drug and alcohol testing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: alphabetaone

Under DOT rules, if a truck driver is involved in a fatal accident, or an injury accident that requires transport of someone from either vehicle to the hospital, that is cause for drug and alcohol testing.

Which still doesnt give the PD the right to demand it without probable cause or a warrant.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Every patient that comes into an ER is triaged. Time is of the utmost importance. ER doctors must make quick decisions and use certain diagnostic tools to assist them in making those decisions. The most common are blood tests, X-rays, electrocardiograms, CT or computer tomography scans, and MRI or magnetic resonance images. Most emergency rooms require toxicology tests, of all patients that present with:
confusion
deliriousness
unconsciousness
panic attacks
chest pain
difficulty breathing
vomiting
seizures.

There is no way an unconscious patient in a burn unit did not have toxicology testing done. Any professional phlebotomist would know it is standard procedure, and it would have been the first question they would have asked before attempting to collect blood.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: alphabetaone

Under DOT rules, if a truck driver is involved in a fatal accident, or an injury accident that requires transport of someone from either vehicle to the hospital, that is cause for drug and alcohol testing.

Which still doesnt give the PD the right to demand it without probable cause or a warrant.

PC / warrant is not needed if the drive is unconscious. They have given consent.

Title 41 Chapter 6a Part 5 Section 522 - Person incapable of refusal.

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

a reply to: alphabetaone

The accident is probable cause. You can repeat it all you want, but the probable cause is the accident itself. At the very least, the report on the results will go to the police, if the tests aren't done with them there, or by them.

a reply to: Zaphod58


The accident was caused by the police and the person THEY were in a high speed pursuit with, the victim was driving responsibly in his lane of traffic, the accident is in no way PC,probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal. The person in question is and was not ever a suspected criminal

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: baddmove

It is a safer / easier way to preserve chain of custody. You remove an outside agency and keep it all internal with law enforcement. That way training requirements and adherence to departmental policy / laws is better controlled and reduces the chances of collected evidence from being thrown out based on a technicality.

It also reduces the chances of a "policy" from one agency interfering in the actions of another agency.

"Keeping it all internal with law enforcement" sounds equivalent to removing checks and balances on LEO authority, which is already formidable.

It also sounds like it makes it easier for law enforcement to tamper with the evidence if there is no involvement from a hospital that conducts the normal screening and maintains records of samples it takes as a disinterested party. After witnessing footage of local police planting drugs on a crime scene, I am greatly concerned about such possibilities. If I were a police officer, to protect my own integrity from ever being called into question, I would prefer for the medical professionals fully trained in all aspects of patient and/or medical evidence care to collect that medical evidence.

Also, I'm not sure just because an officer is trained in phlebotomy that he can safely draw blood from a severely burned accident victim. I'm reading all of your posts, including the earlier ones where you claim under certain circumstances it is legal for police to shoot an unarmed suspect in the back, and all I can think is that our country is totally screwed if law enforcement can across the board legally operate the way you say it can.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for police in general, but I've run across some very odd ones. I hate to think there are so few checks and balances on their authority as you are suggesting.

a reply to: norhoc

It does not matter. If a truck driver is in a DOT reportable accident, regardless of fault they have to be tested. Truck drivers have much stricter rules that they fall under than normal people do. This is one of those. It doesn't matter if the police caused it, or if the other driver caused it, the driver will be tested. Period.

Here is the complete 20 minute video of the encounter at the hospital.



Dash cam of pursuit.

a reply to: norhoc

You sure you were a cop?

Probable cause is the standard to obtain a warrant.

AND make an arrest.

AND conduct a search.

Beyond that, the DoT regulation makes no distinction between at fault and no fault traffic incidents. Any and all incidents involving a trucker require a test. This accident qualifies for blood draw due to the loss of life, injury requiring treatment away from the scene, and disabling damage to a vehicle.

a reply to: Shamrock6

They've actually changed the rules for that now, in that it requires disabling damage and injury requiring treatment away from the scene/fatality as opposed to disabling damage, or injury/fatality. It used to be a vehicle towed, or an injury, or fatality but not a combination of them. Luckily for me, because the car that hit us a couple weeks ago was totaled.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So two out of three circumstances as opposed to three out of four circumstances qualify this for blood testing.

Or is it three out of three circumstances?

a reply to: Shamrock6



As I have stated in past posts, I was a Federal LEO, I don't need to prove it to anyone on here, I feel, even if I did, it would not be sufficient proof to you guys questioning me on here as I would be redacting my name and any identifiers as I am not putting that out to ATS members. So out of curiosity what proof could I post that is sufficient to you? Also find it funny you are asking for proof from me but not anyone else on here claiming to be LEO or former LEO.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Also according towhat you have posted, it is the Employer that requires it.

a reply to: norhoc

I didn't ask you for anything. Merely questioned your claim based on your assertion that probable cause is used to obtain a warrant but leaving out what else PC is used for, one of which is directly tied to the discussion at hand. Either you have a poor grasp of what PC actually is or you were being intentionally deceptive in your choice of words.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.