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

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

There's nothing questionable about police firing at somebody who's driving towards other officers, and who has already demonstrated a willingness to hit officers and endanger the public.

So yes, the Utah arrest is still "questionable." The Carey incident is not.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Sorry you are being deceitful, the policies were the same, She had it printed out in her hand and showed it to him, and clearly says this is the policy your department has made with this hospital. Also the 20 minute video makes the police look even worse than her two minute video. And her video was not heavily edited as you claim. But I know people like you and shamrock and people like ,oh let's say every human with rational thought, will never agree on this so why we have all been doing this, me included, for 35 pages is baffling. We are all just repeating ourselves now for 20th time and clearly need to stop. I ,for one, am going out to enjoy the day. Have fun continuing to debate.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.

What? They changed their policy to conform with the hospital's policy? So Wubbels was right all along?

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

If there is no facility nearby, the police can perform the test themselves, or have their lab do it, or can be present, if they are also considered to be DOT officers, which many are. It's rare for them to do it, but they can. Most places have somewhere within an hour or so that can do it.

Drivers are held to incredibly high standards, the extent of which sometimes are insane. A driver a few years ago faced vehicular manslaughter charges after he was hit by a drunk driver, who was going the wrong way, because when they did the investigation, they found that he was over hours.

If the driver refuses to comply, he will lose his CDL, it will go on his record as a work related failure of a drug and alcohol test, which will more or less ruin chances of getting a good job in the future, and he opens himself up to civil charges, at the least. If he's found to be at fault, or over hours, he will face much worse consequences.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra

The Salt Lake City police chief and mayor also apologized and changed department policies in line with the guidance Wubbels was following in the July 26 incident.

What? They changed their policy to conform with the hospital's policy? So Wubbels was right all along?

After the incident occurred according to the Mayor and Police Chief. Only the Hospital stated the police agreed with their policy. Apparently that was not accurate. The other possibility is the agreement may have been with the Unified Police Department and the Hospital and not with the Salt Lake City police department.

Either way the Hospital policy and Police policy were not the same when the incident occurred.

a reply to: norhoc

Yeah no. The Mayor and Police Chief stated, and I quoted (that you apparently didnt read or just ignored because it doesnt fit your narrative), that their policy was changed to mimic the Hospital policy after the incident occurred.

The Hospital and only the Hospital stated their policy applied to them and the police.

Apparently the Hospital was wrong in that position.

a reply to: Xcathdra


You are the one on here that clearly disregards facts that don't fit your beliefs, just saying.

a reply to: Zaphod58


OK and in this case the guy was in a hospital, so clearly there was " a facility nearby" the police did not have to do it.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Shamrock6
I used her as an example of how easily we are forgotten when a police action is questionable.

This thread is about inappropriate actions of a police officer towards a Utah nurse. My examples were to demonstrate that it has happened before, and in one case the investigation is still in process, and due to our lack of memory and concern, the other case has completely fallen off the map.

If you want to start a thread on Miriam Carey I am willing to look at it.

I think its a perfect example of how people only see what they want when they continually make blanket accusations against the police. You are 100% wrong in the case you brought up (and then decided you dont want to discuss it). You are doing the same with the incident in Utah and to be honest I dont think you see it.

You latch onto to certain facts and then ignore others when they dont agree with the position you are pushing.

If you dont want something discussed then maybe dont raise the issue and relate it to the current topic.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


You are the one on here that clearly disregards facts that don't fit your beliefs, just saying.

Nice deflection.

Please explain then how I am being deceitful by posting factually correct information as an update. How are you not being deceitful when you dismiss the words of the Mayor and Police Chief while pushing the false information that the policies were the same at the time this occurred.

The only reason to take that position is to support the position you hold and the only way to do that is to ignore what the Mayor and Chief said because it doesnt support your position.

Did I get that right or would you like to clarify your post on what the Hospital claimed and what the Mayor and Police Chief stated and how they were in fact operating from 2 separate policies.

a reply to: norhoc

If you're going to make a dramatic statement about how you're not going to talk to me, it's pretty childish to continue to "call me out" by name in comments directed at other members you've also said you're not going to engage with any further.

Grow up.

You're right, I don't agree with you. Namely because you're choosing to accept at face value the nurse's statement that it was an agreed to policy but you're not willing to accept at face value the chief saying "nope, we weren't using the same policy and we've changed our policy so that it matches now." That's an admission of using bad policy on the part of the police. Why you wouldn't be willing to accept that statement but do accept the other, even though one is an admission that they weren't using a good policy, is pretty preposterous.

And, to reiterate, I haven't defended the arrest. And I haven't weighed in with a definitive stance on whether the blood draw was allowable or not. Point of fact, I stated that I can understand why there was, and is, so much confusion about the issue because there's multiple policies, laws, and regulations colliding here. And further stated that regardless of all that, the arrest was wholly unnecessary.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Only the Hospital stated the police agreed with their policy.

LOL Now you're making up your own truth. As IF! Like the hospital was lying about the Salt Lake City Police's involvement in the agreement. Disgraceful!

Either way the Hospital policy and Police policy were not the same when the incident occurred.

Whos fault is that? Not Nurse Wubbels'!
The nurse had a legal agreement in her hand, that the Salt Lake City Police Department had agreed to, formally, but the PD upper echelon, apparently, hadn't yet instructed their staff to note the policy, therefore the apology.

There is no defense for the way this woman was treated by those police officers. That's why the PD and Mayor offered none, just an apology.

You also claimed that the PD did the blood draw that day, anyway. Any proof of that yet?

a reply to: norhoc

No, they didn't, but that doesn't mean that they won't shove their nose in anyway.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think its a perfect example of how people only see what they want when they continually make blanket accusations in their support of the police.

I think we both have made it clear to each other where we stand. I see no need to continue filling this thread with posts that only repeats what has been said before.

I have nothing new to add in response to your posts. I have said all that I need to say, unless something new is presented.

a reply to: windword
The policies were not the same... Again a source verifying that.

Its is up to you to believe the facts or your own reality, which in this particular case is wrong.


More info coming out now - Source

* - Salt Lake city PD was acting on the request of the Logan police department, who specifically requested a blood draw be performed by their investigator who was working the crash scene. So now we have yet another police departments policy involved.

Also - their policy was different than the hospitals and if you read updated sources they now state the nurse was complying with hospital policy, omitting the "policies were the same" statements.

Judd said that soon after the blood-draw episode, the assistant chief quickly apologized to hospital administration for the encounter and arrest. The department examined its policy for blood draws, which was tweaked, and committed to additional training for its officers who conduct draws. The department has continued to meet with university medical officials in recent weeks, she said, to ensure adequate procedures are in place so ”it doesn’t happen again.”

The updated policy, provided by the department, states that a blood draw requires consent by the subject, or a search warrant — noting that ”implied consent” by the subject of the draw is no longer allowed. The updated policy also notes that ”blood draws are subject to established search and seizure laws.”

Payne is one of about 10 officers who are certified to take blood from people who have been involved in serious crashes or other accidents, or are suspected of driving under the influence, Judd said. They carry their own blood-draw kits, she said, and are often called upon by other police departments, such as Logan, to take blood at Salt Lake City hospitals.

Judd said there was some confusion about the video, with many people assuming “that the officer was demanding that the nurse draw the blood.” But Judd said Payne was in fact ”demanding to find out where Gray was” being treated in the burn unit of the hospital, so Payne could draw the blood himself. (Gray remained in serious condition at the hospital this week, officials there said.)

* - The detective was not demanding Hospital staff draw the blood. He wanted to know where the patient was located so he could draw the blood. In situations like that they draw the blood while the agency in charge of the investigation drafts the warrants needed. Instead the nurse blocked the detective from finding the patient.

* - When the detective learned the hospital took blood he released the nurse and noted in his report the incident with the nurse and would allow detectives decide if they wanted to charge her with obstruction.

* - The blood draw unit is used by area agencies, not only for DWI / DUI cases but also for major crashes that involve fatalities.

* - The detective also works as a paramedic (30 years) and has no incidents with the paramedic agency.

* - The nurse refused based solely on hospital policy.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think its a perfect example of how people only see what they want when they continually make blanket accusations in their support of the police.

I think we both have made it clear to each other where we stand. I see no need to continue filling this thread with posts that only repeats what has been said before.

I have nothing new to add in response to your posts. I have said all that I need to say, unless something new is presented.

and if you didnt ignore facts you would have noticed I stated several times the officer could have handled it differently. All I have done is present facts and the law, which some people cant seem to grasp.

New info is coming out.. people seem to be ignoring it because it calls into question the nurses statements about what occurred.

Let's review here because the thread is constantly repeating things to cover personal agendas.

1) The constitution is the highest law in the USA

2) The supreme court clarifies cases based on infringement of above laws

3) State laws, and DOT rules are subservient to the above laws, and in most cases over-turned if they violate #1

The Utah police have changed their policies to match the hospitals and retrained officers, because they know they violated people's rights.

www.nbcnews.com...

The inquiry into her case will be run by Salt Lake County's Unified Police. The district attorney's office will review the findings and determine whether they merit criminal charges.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that a blood sample cannot be taken without patient consent or a warrant. "“We need to make this better. This can't be happening.”" Salt Lake City police updated their blood-draw policy "right away" to match that of the hospital, and the department has already re-trained officers on the updated policy, said police spokeswoman Christina Judd.

Police also met with hospital officials within 24 hours of the incident to figure out "what we needed to change to make sure it didn't happen again," Judd said.

"We have a really strong tie to the nurses that we work with. The police interact with nurses multiple times a day sometimes, and we never want to fracture that relationship," she said.

"We took the incident very seriously from the moment we found out about it and have been working really diligently with Wubbels' attorney and ... herself, and trying to make sure that no one in the medical profession ever needs to fear a police officer here," she added.

"It's so sad that we’ve had this rift in our relationship with the medical community and we’re working hard to fix that."

a reply to: Realtruth

* - The ruling in Birchfield vs. N. Dakota doesnt apply to Utah so Utahs implied consent laws stand as constitutional (civil penalties and not criminal).

* - the policies of the SLCPD were in fact different than those of the Hospital ad were changed after the incident occurred.

* - Logan Police department was the investigating agency at the wreck and request slcdp do the blood draw. That is a common occurrence and warants, when needed, are drafted by the agency working the investigation and not the SLCPD.

* - In Utah, in addition to DWI / DUI cases, accidents involving fatalities are also worked with blood draws.

* - Federal law (title 49) and federal motor carrier requirements require a test of commercial drivers, regardless of fault, involved in an accident where there is a lot of damage coupled with injuries. Those laws have preemption over state laws specifically included. It also notes local / state police investigations can be used as the required testing in those case.

Since it has been posted several times in various previous pages.
The Supreme Court decision requiring a warrant for blood draw only applies to states whose implied consent laws attach a criminal punishment for failure to comply. States whose implied consent laws attach a civil (administrative) penalty were not affected by the ruling and are constitutional.

Finally the scotus ruling applies to conscious drivers. They also maintained an exigent circumstance ability in states where a warrant is required where, in certain conditions, a blood draw can occur without a warrant.

Respectfully, if you are going to lob an accusation of people trying to hide behind an agenda you may want to know what you are talking about before providing incorrect information.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Realtruth



* - Federal law (title 49) and federal motor carrier requirements require a test of commercial drivers, regardless of fault, involved in an accident where there is a lot of damage coupled with injuries. Those laws have preemption over state laws specifically included. It also notes local / state police investigations can be used as the required testing in those case.

True, but the blood test cannot be taken unless the hospital gives an approval, if the patient is critical, or their is a situation where taking blood can risk the patients life, then they have the right to refuse, until stability is achieved.

Federal Laws mean nothing if they violate a persons IV amendment, if the person is not able " to be secure in their persons", then subservient laws can, and will be challenged all the way up to the supreme court.

If the Utah Police department thought they were in the right, they would have held their ground and not changed their policies and retrained everyone within days of this debacle.

The thread was about the nurse and her being treated poorly due to trying to follow protocol, and protect an unconscious patients rights to be secure in their person. I was merely trying to stay on topic.

Search Results Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

a reply to: Realtruth

When you sign that contract with the trucking company, you sign an agreement to abide by the FMCSR. That means you agree that, at any time in the future, if you are in an accident, they have permission to run blood and alcohol tests. If you refuse, you're going to be screwed for years to come.