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

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: norhoc


FACT- Implied consent only applies if there is PC or Reasonable suspicion to believe the person committed a crime, in this case they had NO PC or RS so implied consent does not apply.

FACT - in addition scotus said warrantless blood draws can occur under exigent circumstances.

You continually fail to add that important part - why?

Exigent circstances? Like a truck driver that was the victim of a police chase and a race against the clock to prove the victim a criminal in order to save the department from lawsuit?

Is that defined as Exigent?

Determined by the officer on scene running the investigation.

Ask Logan pd or wait for the conclusion of the investigation.

Ok. How about just your opinion or experience with this. Would a risk of lawsuit against a police department be considered exigent circumstance for an "officer on scene running the investigation" ??

Does public perception and liability count as Exigent circumstance? When a PD is in trouble with potential lawsuit all gloves are off cause it's exigent?

Nope. As I said if the pursuit was within law and departmental policy police have immunity.

Public perception impacts the situation but in the realm that the chief and mayor and there need for public support, regardless of what the law may say or if the officer was correct. An example is Ferguson where the officer was cleared of any wrong doing. The city however decided to pay out to the family because of public perception and politics.

Exigent circumstances are case by case situation specific. An exigent circumstance in one scenario wouldnt apply in another scenario.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


And in that reply to me you just admitted that all of us saying this was illegal are right. When I said there was no PC, RS, exigent, hence no legal standing and you replied "that we are aware of" so you agree as of right now there was no legal standing. Thank You, Case Closed, Debate over, bravo on it taking 45+ pages

huh.. really.. I must have missed the part whee you explained why an exigent circumstance didnt exist. Please enlighten us.

a reply to: Xcathdra


doesn't work that way buddy, you are the one making the claim of exigent circumstance, so burden of proof is on you

originally posted by: norhoc
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Well, no its not obvious why the policies were different. If it were then the pd and hospital would not have to keep meeting to iron out a policy that works for both sides.

Yet another fact you ignored.

a reply to: Xcathdra
She also has the right to refuse. See the wording here:

41-6a-523. Persons authorized to draw blood -- Immunity from liability.

(1) (a) Only the following, acting at the request of a peace officer, may draw blood to determine its alcohol or drug content:

Does not say "shall" which means it is permissible but not mandatory. Your argument doesn't fly there either. She was under no obligation to allow him to do.

He was attempting to violate the patient's rights. She was absolutely within her authority to prevent that to protect her patient, her hospital and her license. Allowing a person not under contract to the hospital or employed by the hospital would not have been considered "standard medical practice" in view of the fact that he had no paperwork and apparently had no contract with the hospital nor was he an employee of the hospital.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: [post=22636674]Xcathdra[/post


you accuse others of doing what you are doing, again you can't answer the exigent circumstances question because you know you are wrong here and just can't admit it, just like the meathead cop in the video

I cant answer it because i dont have the information from the crash that led the officer on scene to request a blood draw.

and neither can you.

a reply to: Xcathdra



Your argument is falling apart as you speak, early on it was all about implied consent, now you know that is toast so you moved to exigent circumstances.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I think we all do from the video. the truck driver was in his lane of traffic when a fleeing suspect in a police high speed pursuit veered into oncoming traffic and hit the truck driver's vehicle

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


doesn't work that way buddy, you are the one making the claim of exigent circumstance, so burden of proof is on you

and you're the one saying there was no exigent circumstance and you made that conclusion without any info from the crash scene. We only get what the media and this nurse are saying. I gave come to find its not always 100% accurate.

The statement was we need to know what occurred at the crash scene for the investigating officer to request the blood draw.

If you want me to speculate I would say the officer knew about the DOT requirements for commercial truck drivers and mandatory testing when involved, which dont require a warrant. That would be in line with the officer telling the nurse the driver was not a suspect and they were trying to protect the driver.

a reply to: Xcathdra



It is a fact the PD changed their policy , if they were in the right they would not have changed their policy

a reply to: diggindirt

He wasnt because the detective wasnt asking any nurses to draw the blood. He was there to draw the blood himself. Medical refused to tell him where the patient was.

the part you cited is if medical staff is requested and in this case they werent.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra



Your argument is falling apart as you speak, early on it was all about implied consent, now you know that is toast so you moved to exigent circumstances.

No I till think implied consent would be valid under this scenario.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


I think we all do from the video. the truck driver was in his lane of traffic when a fleeing suspect in a police high speed pursuit veered into oncoming traffic and hit the truck driver's vehicle

Yup - now tell me, from that video, everything that hapened from the moment f impact to the driver arriving at the hospital. Tell me everything the investigating officers on scene did, what they looked at, what they found etc etc.

You cant.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Despite the fact legal scholars and police professionals do not? And the law states for implied consent to apply you need PC, RS, or EC and none of those were in play here?

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra



It is a fact the PD changed their policy , if they were in the right they would not have changed their policy

Yes - after the incident occurred.

so was the detective acting within departmental policy?

In case you didnt notice it was the officer arresting the nurse that they apologized for. Not that the detective was outside policy.

originally posted by: norhoc
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

no the entire incident is not on video. Only 20+ minutes at the Hospital out of a couple of hours. He spent an hour at the hospital waiting on admin before he called his Lt. to explain what was going on.

So obviously there is more that occurred that we dont know about that the nurse is not discussing for some reason.

You arent very observant are you?

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Despite the fact legal scholars and police professionals do not? And the law states for implied consent to apply you need PC, RS, or EC and none of those were in play here?

That we know of. As i said we dont know what the logan officer said when he requested the draw.

You think that information might be relevant to place some things in context? Or are you intent on rushing to judgement and facts be damned.