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

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

Also "time outs" are dependent upon situation and departmental policy.

You mean like they 'timed out' that nurse in cuffs in the back of a squad car?

The obvious message to all the staff right there was, who's next?

We want our blood and we'll get it.

actually yes.. She was taken into custody and placed in the car to prevent a scene and her from escalating the situation anymore than it already had been. Thats been verified by the video with the way she reacted and the fact 2 other medical employees thought it would be a good idea to place their hands on the nurse to prevent the officer from acting.

A person cannot resist an arrest, regardless of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the arrest. It is up to the courts to determine and not the person.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Xcathdra

I gotta be honest man, this is not a good look on you. At all.

For what? Wanting all facts and information first? The video doesn't show the entire story and reading thru the thread you will notice "facts" initially reported or ignored are coming out and changing.

The pursuit was with Utah Highway patrol. It was within policy and law.
Logan PD worked the fatality accident involving the guy suiciding himself into a semi.
The logan investigator requested Salt Lake City PD do the blood draw.
Salt Lake City PD has their own blood draw unit with certified phlebotomists.
At no point was medical staff "ordered" to do a blood draw.
The detective notified staff the patient wasnt a suspect and the draw was to protect him.
Federal law on truck drivers allows warrantless blood draws when ivolved in an accidnet coupled with injuries, as in this case.
The detective was not intially told no. He was told he needed permission from administration.
The detective waited for an hour with no one from administration contacting him.
The nurse then refuses to tell the detective where the patient is located and goes down the policy road.
Detective contacts his Lt, explains the situation and is told to arrest the nurse if she continues to interfere.
Nurse gets next higher up on the phone and they continue to refuse patient access.
Nurse is taken into custody.
After 20 minutes when its disclosed to the detective medical already took a blood draw for treatment, detective release RN and in his reports notes the incident and forwards t detectives to follow up and charge if need be for obstruction.
We find out that the RN was incorrect when she explained the Hospital policy, falsely claiming Salt Lake City PD agreed to the policy. What we learned is after the incident occurred the Chief and Mayor both stated their policy was being reviewed and changed to be in line with the Hospitals policy. So the detective was operating under a PD policy and the hospital operating under their policy. Hospital policy doesnt override PD policy (as much as people want to bitch about it).

We still dont know the specifics from Logan pd nor from Utah HP.
We dont know exatly what was told to the LT or what the LT told the detective.
We dont know the history of the Hospital and Law Enforcement relations as it seems to be these types of encounters, with medical staff obstructing, have occurred before.

Why did the RN and her lawyer request the body cam footage and then selectively edit it, releasing only 2 minutes showing the arrest yet failing to provide the entire 20+ minute video showing the efforts to resolve the situation?
Why is the nurse making the morning talk show rounds on the situation, claiming she wants to educate people yet failing to tell the complete story, including all the delays they forced on the officer from the outset?

I have stated several times the officer could have handled the situation differently / better than he did. I also believe medical staff failed in their duties by behaving in the manner they did, not notifying the officer blood had already been drawn for medical purpose. I personally believe the Hospital staff intentionally picked this fight with law enforcement and I believe it goes to a larger issue of problems between the Hospital and PD and the incorrect thought process that hospital policy somehow trumps pd policy or state / local / federal law.

The Hospital policy, as she read of the requirements, doesnt take into account the SCOTUS ruling requiring a warrant for a blood draw also allows for a warrantless blood draw based on exigent circumstances. The exigent circumstances come from the officer and not hospital staff or policy. It also doesnt account for Federal law concerning commercial truck drivers, who are required to provide blood breath or urine in some circumstances, regardless of fault and without a warrant.

Even now the PD and Hospital are still meetig, according to media,, to try and resolve the differences to create a single unified policy however, once again, that policy will only apply to Salt Lake City PD and no toher agency unless they agree to adopt it. If other PDs dont then we come back to 2 different conflicting policies where PD policy is going to trump a hospital policy based on an officer performing his duties.

With that said, and from my own experiences as law enforcement dealing with medical staff, I want the full story before completely condemning the officer. What occurred is so rare that it leads me to believe their is prior history with this hospital and law enforcement contact. It leads me to believe, again from personal experience, that the Hospital is under the wrong impression that their internal policies apply to law enforcement in the course of their duties - they do not if they conflict with PD policy and state / local laws.

There was a third department present, the University police, who are now in trouble for not interfering with what the Salt Lake detective was doing. Again from personal experience I have seen the hospital call security in an attempt
to force officers to leave while they are doing their required duties.

It does not work that way.

So if you think its bad to want all information first then the problem is not with me man.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I have heard several times they claimed they wanted to blood to "protect him" I curious how this would protect him? or how not taking blood would hurt him?

Have to go..will check in later.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

I have heard several times they claimed they wanted to blood to "protect him" I curious how this would protect him? or how not taking blood would hurt him?

Have to go..will check in later.

As a Commercial truck driver he is required by law to be tested when involved in an accident that results in damage coupled with injuries regardless of fault. Blood draws are 48 hours and drug tests are 72 hours after the accident *If I remember Zaphs post correctly.. Its some pages back). Going outside those hours can impact their license. In this guys case he is a full time commercial truck driver and a part time reserve officer. Truck driving is his livelihood.

The request for blood was made by the Logan investigator working the fatality accident. According to media its common to draw blood for fatality accidents.

However since medical took a blood sample for their tests it ended the attempts to get the blood. All they have to do is issue a subpoena for hospital records.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
A person cannot resist an arrest, regardless of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the arrest.

Ummm...not true at all.
The Blaze

Thanks to the miracle of the World Wide Web, you need not drive to you local county courthouse and spend hours wading though law books and legal journals. The precedent has long been established and there are numerous findings and legal opinions that can be found online.

In what would seem to be the original test of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment 5, specifically “..deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” we have the case of Plummer v. State 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893). The Indiana Supreme Court after considering the original case, overturned a manslaughter conviction against Plummer and issued the following opinion: “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.”

Several years later, the Plummer decision was used as precedent during the appeals trial of one, John Bad Elk. Bad Elk, a tribal police officer in South Dakota, had killed another tribal policeman. Three policemen had attempted to arrest Bad Elk without a warrant or charges.

Bad Elk was originally convicted of murder, however, his conviction was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court who issued this opinion:

“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Now, I'm not advocating that everyone resist arrest if you think that you're being illegally arrested, but there absolutely is precedent, both at the state level and federal, that it is legal to resist arrest if there are no appropriate grounds for the arrest. Of course, in general, it takes a well learned individual or an attorney to know the difference, so it really is best to err on the side of caution, submit to the arrest, and call out the officer in court for his/her illegalities later.

I used the "The Blaze" article simply because it discusses it well enough--there are myriad other sources that back up the same reality.

But herein lies the second, equally volatile ingredient into the mix of an arrest--many officers believe as you do, that it is always illegal to resist an arrest, and so often times the officer inappropriately intensifies the force used instead of taking a step back for a second and thinking.

It's like that quote from "Jurassic Park" (paraphrased): They are so preoccupied on if they have the authority to arrest, they don't stop to think if they should. (and by authority, I mean, is it part of their job)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I did a rather lengthy thread about that very subject.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes - completely true -

See Shamrocks post above for his thread.

and be cautious using Supreme Court cases from 1900 (incident occurred in 1899). Chances are they have been replaced with newer scotus rulings, such as in this case.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Regardless of any explanations you provide, the truth of the matter is.. All officers present are being investigated by both their department and outside source. What does that tell you? It says to me, the LE higher-ups don't agree with your interpretation.

I do agree that soldiers as well as officers are trained to follow orders. Which makes this situation difficult. That said, we do have laws and or procedures which absolve a person from punishment for not following an order he/she deemed unlawful.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's the problem with SCOTUS rulings...depending on the political make-up at the time, they can change on the whim of a new court case.

But like I said, legal precedent or not, I wouldn't advise it, regardless. I'll take a look at the thread, though, as I'm interested in seeing where it went, but the fact remains that your outright claim that "a person cannot resist arrest, regardless of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the arrest," is not factual, as there are instances where resisting arrest is warranted and allowed by the judicial system, again, often dependent upon which state you're in at the time.

I still stand by my comment, though, that it's not good practice, regardless.

Also, I would argue that, had this nurse resisted, logic would tell a court that it was warranted resistance, regardless of the realities of the laws in her particular state. In that instance, I probably would have resisted.

Right, so now a Vigilante is a good thing. The nurse should have voiced her concerns to the police and then reported it up the chain if she felt they did something illegal.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

To be fair, had it reached the point of her actually getting charged I think just about any prosecutor would have nol prossed it. I strongly suspect it never would have even seen the inside of a courtroom. Beyond the point of nol pros, anyway.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I agree as well.

And thanks to you and Xcathedra for making me research it a bit more--legality behind arrest doesn't necessarily matter (except in South Carolina, apparently), it's the force used by the officer during arrest that matters.

The general point still stands, though, as there are certain times when resisting arrest is appropriate/allowed, although an ill-advised way to go about things.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The South Carolina thing was an interesting find for me. Happy to give you something to read up on

a reply to: Xcathdra

actually yes.. She was taken into custody and placed in the car to prevent a scene and her from escalating the situation anymore than it already had been. Thats been verified by the video with the way she reacted

Nice try, she was calm until they began grab-assing her.

I did watch the video, maybe you should too.

www.washingtonpost.com... 640598b few more links

www.msn.com...

The University of Utah Hospital, where a nurse was manhandled and arrested by police as she protected the legal rights of a patient, has imposed new restrictions on law enforcement, including barring officers from patient-care areas and from direct contact with nurses.

Gordon Crabtree, interim chief executive of the hospital, said at a Monday news conference that he was “deeply troubled” by the arrest and manhandling of burn unit nurse Alex Wubbels on July 26. In accord with hospital policy and the law, she had refused to allow a Salt Lake City police officer to take a blood sample from an unconscious patient. Wubbels obtained a copy of the body cam video of the confrontation and, after consulting her lawyer, the hospital and police officials, released it last week.

“This will not happen again,” Crabtree said, praising Wubbels for “putting her own safety at risk” to “protect the rights of patients.”

with now two officers being suspended its sure making it look like the pd feels bad about their screw up
and i guess the new policy was put in place in august after this incident
www.independent.co.uk

The hospital and the law in Utah and nationwide require police to have a warrant or permission from the patient to draw a blood sample in such circumstances. Payne had neither.

After Wubbels politely and repeatedly read hospital policy to him and had a supervisor back her up on a speakerphone connection, Payne snapped. He seized hold of the nurse, shoved her out of the building and cuffed her hands behind her back. A bewildered Wubbels screamed “help me” and “you're assaulting me” as the detective forced her into an unmarked car and accused her of interfering with an investigation.

so according to multiple sources the officers requests were illegal under state law,also

it seems that she is now considering a lawsuit against the university police/security if they refuse to update their policies on the matter

Wubbels told Today that she didn't want to “police the police,” but said she and her attorney were considering a lawsuit if the departments involved in the incident didn't update their policies.

On CNN's New Day, Wubbels said she felt betrayed by both Salt Lake City police and university security. She described how she tried to get guards to intervene, saying that Payne seemed angry from the moment he arrived. In the video, university officers can be seen standing by as Payne violently arrests the nurse.

and i guess the univesity police are now doing the following

snipped

so yeah every one seems to be in agreement that the cops were way out of line and acting above their legal authority

probably a long shot but could medical professionals have had the officer committed for being a danger to himself or in this case others? 72 hour hold can be used to help stablize people who are acting irrationally more so those that are a danger to others and themselves?

www.usnews.com...

ALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah police officer seen on video roughly arresting a nurse who refused to draw blood from a patient was fired Tuesday from his part-time paramedic job. Salt Lake City Detective Jeff Payne's termination came after he said on the video that he'd bring transient patients to the hospital and take the "good patients" elsewhere to retaliate against nurse Alex Wubbels. Those remarks were concerning for Gold Cross Ambulance President Mike Moffitt, who said he'd heard them for the first time when the video was released last week. "That's not the way we conduct our business, that's not the way we treat people in our city," Moffitt said.

update apparently the officer has been fired from his ambulance job so it seems he will be dealing with far more consequences then the pending criminal investigation against him for his poor conduct

heavy.com... some info on the other officer involved in the incident

You can see Tracy explaining himself to Wubbels and other nurses in the video above. As Porter noted at Wubbels’ press conference, “implied consent” hasn’t been in Utah law since 2007. The United States Supreme Court also ruled in 2016 that the Constitution does permit officers to obtain breath tests without a warrant in drunken-driving cases, but not blood draws.

so if they had asked for breath it would have been ok but not blood and implied consent hasn't be valid in state since 2007

Update -

Basically what people were talking about. The Hospital officially announced their new policy today at a press conference. Law Enforcement's point of contact with the Hospital is restricted to Hospital Supervisors only. Contact must occur in a non patient care area.

Utah hospital changes policy following nurse's violent arrest

Now, about that -
* - Hospital policy Law Enforcement "agreed to" - never happened. The newest policy, according to the article, is a Hospital only policy. They are vague on what policy the Police and the Hospital came up with.

* - Implied Consent laws - Apparently the reason University police did not interfere with the Salt Lake city officer or his actions is because they were operating under the same policy - that the implied consent law was still valid and active. So even Hospital police were operating under a different policy than the medical side of the Hospital.

Since the incident University police have had to undergo deescalation training in an effort to prevent a similar occurrence. One major issue with a Hospital having their own police department is how they can force a policy onto their officers while they are also required to follow state / local law. From experience i can say it can cause massive problems when a policy comes into conflict with a state or local law. Admins have a bad habit of thinking their policy will override when it does not.

So far the Hospital policy still requires consent or a warrant and there is nothing in that policy that deals with exigent circumstances where a warrantless blood draw can occur. Once again setting up a potential conflict where if push comes to shove we would once again have a situation where a nurse is going to try and hide behind policy only to be arrested because of that policy.

I still get the impression the Hospital and Salt Lake City pd have had and still have issues coming together on certain topics and based on the Hospitals press conference it sounds like they are sending the message to the PD through the media.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

actually yes.. She was taken into custody and placed in the car to prevent a scene and her from escalating the situation anymore than it already had been. Thats been verified by the video with the way she reacted

Nice try, she was calm until they began grab-assing her.

I did watch the video, maybe you should too.

I did.. and at the end when he went to take her into custody she refused, jerked away and then attempted to walk away from him. He went hands on, resulting in her screaming at him and other people and she was taken outside so she did not cause a scene. 2 Hospital employees then interfered and were warned. she was secured in the car for 20 minutes and released without charges. The detectives report noted the incident and left it up to detectives to file for charges or not.