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

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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?

Utahs implied consent law allows for warrantless blood draw if the person is unconscious. the scotus ruling requiring a warrant was a narrow scope ruling and only applies to states whose implied consent laws have a criminal penalty for refusals. States whose implied consent laws that have civil penalties for refusal are not affected and their implied consent laws stand as constitutional.

Such as Utah's.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm asking solely and entirely as it pertains to the DoT regulation on when a blood draw is required.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's two out of three. It used to be any one of the three required testing. Now it's either a fatality, which is automatic, or injury and disabling damage requiring the vehicle to be towed.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Here is the complete 20 minute video of the encounter at the hospital.

The best part is at 7:45 where he tells everyone that "I am leaving here with this person and if any of you wish to prevent that, then that is your option".

Then he turns and points at the cop who is filming him and says "he will be taken next".

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm asking solely and entirely as it pertains to the DoT regulation on when a blood draw is required.

My bad.. Ill defer to Zaph since he drives trucks.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Gotcha. So this incident would qualify under both then, given that there was a fatality, and that there was serious injury and disabled vehicles.

No specification as to who's fatality it has to be, who's vehicle is disabled, who's seriously injured, or who's at fault. Correct?

a reply to: norhoc

No, it isn't. It's the DOT that requires the employer to arrange the testing. The regulation falls under 49 CFR 382.203. That's a federal regulation, not an employer regulation. The employer is obligated to inform the driver to report to a location that they have arranged the testing to be completed at, and to pay for the testing. They are required to do this under DOT regulations.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Correct. Under the new chart, a citation is required to the truck driver as well. But if it meets the standards, it doesn't matter who is at fault, the testing needs to be completed within the specified times. If there are two drivers on the truck, and one is in the sleeper then only the driver needs testing. If it's a student/trainer situation, and the trainer is doing observation, then both drivers need to be tested, regardless of fault.

a reply to: Shamrock6


From the arresting officers own mouth -----

“So why don’t we just write a search warrant,” the officer wearing the body camera says to Payne.
“They don’t have PC,” Payne responds, using the abbreviation for probable cause, which police must have to get a warrant for search and seizure. He adds that he plans to arrest the nurse if she doesn’t allow him to draw blood. “I’ve never gone this far,”


Payne-"They don't have PC" to get a warrant

a reply to: Shamrock6


You are calling me a liar when I say I was Federal LE then back down when I say what proof would you all who are questioning accept.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Do your think the officer was demanding the patient's blood to meet a requirement for DOT?

Perhaps he was, but that requirement was most likely met even prior to admission, and definitely had been meet at the time of the detective's encounter with the nurse. Since the patient was not under arrest, nor under suspicion for any wrong doing, there would be no need for the detective to collect any additional blood.

The problem that I have with this incident, has nothing to do with why the detective was requesting to draw the patient's blood.

The nurse had made it clear that what he was asking for was outside of her authority to provide. She called her superior, placed him on speakerphone so the detective and her hospital administrator could work it out.

The hospital administrator was not saying what the detective wanted to hear, so he took out his anger and frustration on the nurse, and tried to force her into submission.

That is the unjustifiable act here. It has nothing to do with whether the request was reasonable or legal. His actions where unjustified and did nothing to change the outcome in his favor. He bullied and attacked the wrong person.

The reason for his suspension and the investigation is his inappropriate, and possibly illegal, management of the situation.

a reply to: norhoc

Unless they get consent for the blood draw which occurred under Utah state implied consent laws for when the driver is unconscious.

Secondly federal law and federal regulations in this case are not subject to Utah state law. They preempt it.

She was detained and not arrested.

So if a police officer states you are under arrest then you really aren't under arrest?

a reply to: Zaphod58



So you said it, the EMPLOYER to arrange, not police forcibly take

originally posted by: roadgravel

She was detained and not arrested.

So if a police officer states you under arrest then you really aren't under arrest?

In her case she was released without any charges by the very officer who placed her in handcuffs.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Blaine91555

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?

nope - I see the Chief and head of the Citizens review board as politicians who see it from a political viewpoint and not that of an officer doing his job.

People can support the police while question / disagreeing with actions of officers. However on this board we seem to have people who ignore any and all facts that dont fit their agenda.

it has become the in thing to throw police under the bus for political expediency.

I see the "us vs. them" stance we all fear in police is entrenched in your thinking and blinding you to the wrong in this particular situation. You are most definitely correct that it has indeed become the in thing to throw police under the bus for political expediency. We see it happening to cops regardless of their race if there can be a race card called into play. It's despicable that this happens. It is wrong. It must stop if we are to move forward as a civilized society.

However, there is indeed a reason that it does happen and that is because there are in fact bigoted or unhinged police who have abused their authority and have maimed and murdered citizens who may not be pillars of the community, but nevertheless were innocent of wrongdoing at the time they were attacked. Or they were guilty, but brutalized by excessive use of force.

It is good that you question this situation. But it is dangerous that you assume those of us who question it from a different angle are automatically anti-police. That is not a healthy attitude for an law enforcement officer to carry around. You're feeding into the "us vs them" mindset that is destroying good relations between law enforcement and the community...which you SERVE. Remember that, the community is not here to serve and protect law enforcement. We are paying you to protect and serve us. We would like to help you do that job well and accord you much authority to do so. But it's not a license to push people around. Good officers know this.

It is a difficult, dangerous job and hard to do well. I have the utmost respect for the police who treat their jobs like the honorable calling that it should be. But I'm scared to death of the ones who abuse their position of power and trust. They must be stopped, peacefully and legally, of course.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: roadgravel

She was detained and not arrested.

So if a police officer states you under arrest then you really aren't under arrest?

In her case she was released without any charges by the very officer who placed her in handcuffs.

But at one point she was under arrest unless the words from the officer are meaningless.

Then a person struggles or walks off and then risks "resisting arrest".

a reply to: norhoc

The employer arranges it, it's up to the police if they want to be there, or be involved. The police are going to be involved, as it's going to go to them for the investigation. If they so choose, they can be involved, or even have their lab do the testing if they have one available. The only requirement is that it is done within the times specified by the DOT. It doesn't specify where it has to be done, or who, other than a qualified testing facility.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I'm not arguing that the cop was in the right. I'm arguing that under DOT regulations, as part of the police investigation, the truck driver is required to undergo drug and alcohol testing within 8 and 32 hours, and that the police CAN request that it be done. If the driver is unconscious, then blood draw is allowed, otherwise it's a breath test. This officer went over the line, I agree completely with that.

Wubbels’ attorney, Karra Porter, said that Payne thought “implied consent” allowed him to take the blood test. But as Vox explained, Utah courts rejected that rationale ten years ago and, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police need a warrant or consent for blood tests.
thinkprogress.org...

But while Utah’s law is constitutional, it turns out not to have permitted this specific blood draw. As written, Utah’s law only permits an officer to conduct such a test where he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person from whom blood is to be taken was driving “while in violation of” the laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances. In this case, the detective specifically lacked any such grounds, because the draw was being taken to show the opposite – that the driver was not under the influence. Utah’s implied consent law did not authorize this particular blood draw under these particular circumstances.
..............
So Nurse Wubbels was ultimately right – but for the wrong reasons. And the Salt Lake Police were ultimately wrong – but could rightly point to an implied consent law as potentially being in play.
www.sltrib.com...