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

a reply to: Xcathdra


Neither of the sources I posted, the second one being your own source, cite that statute, and I have no idea where it comes from, or how it applies here.

Again, from your own source:

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.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra


Neither of the sources I posted, the second one being your own source, cite that statute, and I have no idea where it comes from, or how it applies here.

Again, from your own source:

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.

I could make sense of all of this if the blood he was after belonged to the fleeing suspect, but an innocent victim?

I'm left wondering if Tracey (the cop's supervisor) is on the payroll of the truck driver's insurance company. Why else would he be so determined to get that man's blood without his consent?

The discussion about the laws is interesting and all, but does anyone think that nurse will ever again have respect for law enforcement? Does that matter at all? Bad or bullying behavior by those in authority is always wrong IMO.

People should not fear law enforcement, they should count on it when needed. Any officer who uses bullying tactics is not cool like the cops on the boob tube, they are a liability. Nothing worse than bullies with badges.

I have the utmost respect for nearly all cops, but those few who are in fact bullies with badges, like the one in that video do far more harm than good. That nurse was a law abiding person doing no wrong, just trying to do her job. Making excuses for that cop is just sad whether the law was on his side or not.

Treating her the way she was treated is why so many have so little respect. It does not matter that nine out of ten times experiences with law enforcement are civil, it just takes that one bully to cause a person to turn against them.

This belongs in this conversation and is far more important than minutia of the law.

originally posted by: roadgravel
One a person is arrested, can an officer just drop the arrest or does it then involve others.

Depends on department but in general all states have laws that give the discretion to the officer.

a reply to: windword

It is a separate part of Utah's implied consent law and for some reason the author of the article overlooked it. I sent him a message with the added portion that was omitted.

Here you go -

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: Bone75

* Commercial Truck drivers are required to submit to testing when involved in an accident where there is an injury and damage over a certain amount.
* An unconscious person involved in a mva in the state of Utah has given their implied consent for testing.

Wow, you got to love a law that implies consent from an unconscious person, what a farcical pile of [email protected] that apply to rape too?

No f'ing morality.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bone75

* Commercial Truck drivers are required to submit to testing when involved in an accident where there is an injury and damage over a certain amount.

Which is to be performed at a facility of the employer's choosing.

* An unconscious person involved in a mva in the state of Utah has given their implied consent for testing.

He has an Idaho driver's license. He didn't consent to anything in Utah.

a reply to: Xcathdra

the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not

One of the unique things that defines true freedom is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Guilty until proven innocent is what is used by countries where authorities rule with an iron fist.

Somebody dropped the ball when that was passed. Somebody who wants a police state.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Taking blood without consent, a warrant or when they are unconscious for the express purpose of finding evidence of a crime is in fact compelling someone to testify against them selves as far as I'm concerned.

Mind you, I'm a law abiding citizen who fully supports law enforcement and need for them, but the laws and law enforcement need watched constantly or our rights will be slowly stripped from us.

That's why when things get out of hand and those in law enforcement are blinded to it because of their own biases, it needs to be in the public eye. To me you are pointing out flaws in the law that are not even remotely constitutional. Few if any who get caught up in laws like that have the means to fight back and bad law can stay on the books as a result. Putting it in the public eye is probably the only way some bad laws ever get dealt with and that is bad law IMO.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: dreamingawake

Dumb ass authoritarian cops, fire their asses, sue the living daylights out of them and for good measure they should have their assets seized.

Just ruin their credit.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Even the chapter that you've sourced requires the officer to "have reason to believe" that the driver was driving under the influence.

le.utah.gov...

a reply to: windword

SNIPPED

In this case, I'd say the officer should have his blood drawn to test for steroids. That looks a lot like roid rage to me. When she didn't immediately submit he blew up. Normal people don't react that way, steroid users do. If he had the legal right to have a sample of the blood all he had to do was call a judge and explain why he needed a warrant. The "regulation" cited says within 8 hours. There was no rush except for the possible motives explained at length earlier.

The LEOs standing around letting him abuse that nurse are just as guilty as the abuser. I hope they all spend time in the crossbar hotel for such negligence. They could have stopped this and did not. They are sworn to protect yet they stood with their thumbs in their pocket. This is standard procedure for far too many of them.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

* An unconscious person involved in a mva in the state of Utah has given their implied consent for testing.

Okay, so it turns out that you are more correct on this particular point than I initially thought, but not completely...

Effective 5/9/2017
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.

(1) (a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a
chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the
person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:

(i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, or 53-3-231;
(ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or
(iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in
violation of Section 41-6a-517.

(b) A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer
having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle
while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).

a reply to: Bone75

I don't think anyone was arguing the fact that Utah has an implied consent law. The argument is that the criteria was not met for applying it.

a reply to: diggindirt

They are sworn to protect yet they stood with their thumbs in their pocket. This is standard procedure for far too many of them.

You have identified what can indeed be considered a standard in police departments everywhere.

While rouge out of control cops may be few, the protection and tolerance of them does indeed appear to be a standard.

The one great and simple solution to the elimination of bad behavior among police officers, and a chance at restoring public trust, is to terminate the "blue code" and the "blue wall of silence".

As long as they are allowed to operate with impunity, their numbers will grow, the public distrust and loss of respect, will escalate. The outcome will be horrible for all of America.

The media will continue to push the Terminator cop, the cops will continue to follow their lead, and the people will see them as a threat. There is no good down that track.

As horrible as this incident is, it is also an opportunity for both police officers and the public alike, to see where we are headed, and a chance for us to work together to stop this train before it catapults off the cliff.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Bone75

I don't think anyone was arguing the fact that Utah has an implied consent law. The argument is that the criteria was not met for applying it.

I didn't think out of state drivers were subject to them... I was wrong.

Anyone driving in Utah is, but only if they are suspected of driving impaired... as the law I just posted clearly states.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Sure however their is a fundamental point you overlooked in your argument. In the states that have implied consent laws that have criminal penalties attached you are correct. Its why the scotus ruling requires those states, and only those states, to obtain a search warrant for a blood draw *unless exigent circumstances exist).

In states where implied consent laws have civil penalties attached the implied consent laws were found constitutional. Utah is one of those states where implied consent carried a civil penalty. It is not considered a criminal offense to refuse tests and therefore is not covered by criminal protections.

I found this interesting on Twitter about the case.
mobile.twitter.com...

The patient was the victim of a head on car crash, instigated by a high speed police pursuit against department policy....

The other driver--the suspect--died in the crash. So why did the cop want the victim's blood? To find something to disparage the victim...

And excuse the police from instigating the deadly car chase. This is not really uncommon, relatively speaking.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Still that seems like an end run to me. Taking a blood test from a victim without cause seems pretty invasive to me and even more so when it's an unconscious person. If it were the person or persons who caused the wreck and drug use or alcohol consumption was evident, I'd say the opposite. In that case there would be cause.

I've actually had dealings with law enforcement groups and had a few close friends in law enforcement, which also makes me ask what if the officer(s) giving chase that caused the wreck were impaired. Are they also immediately tested when its possible their actions caused a wreck needlessly. I'm not saying that's the case, but just asking.

I had occasion to see a study by a woman in Boise, ID done for law enforcement about drug and alcohol use among LEO's and they concluded that LEO's are more likely to be alcoholics or addicts than the general population due to the nature of their work. In fact they were more than twice as likely to have an addiction problem.

a reply to: Bone75

For what it is worth every single state has implied consent laws. They go beyond just testing and also include the requirement of a drivers license to operate a vehicle in addition to valid insurance. It also requires the driver to take field sobriety tests in addition to providing blood, breath or urine sample.

When you travel into another state you are subject to their laws and not the laws of your home state. Implied consent laws in Utah apply to all drivers operating a vehicle in that state, regardless if they are a resident their or not. If you are in a state covered by Birchfield vs. N. Dakota then a warrant is needed for blood.

If you are in a state exempted from that ruling then a warrant is not required.

To put it into context it deals with the penalties for refusing to comply with implied consent laws. States that make it a criminal offense to refuse tests etc have to comply with 4th amendment protections. States that classify it as a civil (administrative action) offense dont have to comply with the warrant requirement.