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

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

She was taken outside to prevent her from causing a scene in the ER.

The cops 'caused a scene', not her.

Inside a hospital, directed at staff, no less.

Why you think this went viral?

Because the nurse and er lawyer wanted it to while at the same time failing to provide all relevant info in her story..

Thats called spin, like you're doing. Hats off, I'm usually the one to swim against the current...

I try to have the facts on my side though.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I think that the PD threw a stink over it because, yes, the victim in the accident just happened to be a part-time officer--a stink that was inappropriate, if that's the reason.

I know that the hospital threw a stink over it because--well, it was an illegal request/demand from the PD.

and yet in previous incidents where a blood draw is requested in fatality accidents there was not an issue so I ask again why this time and with this patient? Bear in mind the Hospital claims their policy has been in place for over a year.

As for legal / illegal under Federal law its legal and required for commercial truck drivers. How do we know that wasnt the reason the Logan officer made the request? Using this thread as an example only the LEO's knew about it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Sure, I can agree with that, but context is irrelevant to the letter of the law--at best, the context will only provide mitigating circumstances for the actions, but that doesn't change the inappropriateness of the arrest of the nurse, as she was well within the law in her actions.

Well no, she wasnt. she was within Hospital policy and that Policy was not the same as the Police Policy. Secondly, if you want to get technical, she did in fact obstruct and a case can be made for resisting arrest as well when she jerked away and then moved away when he was taking her into custody. Using the testing laws the legal burden falls on the officer and not medical staff. They are immune from civil and criminal liability related to blood draws done at the officers direction. Since she wasnt being asked to do the draw....

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
That's all well and good, but when presented multiple times with a read verbatim from the policy of the hospital that aligned with state law, the officer should have erred on the side of caution and requested a warrant for the blood, plain and simple.

The patient was the victim of the accident...his blood was relatively pointless to have, except only as a CYA attempt by the PD in hopes that he had drugs or alcohol in the system and they could shift some blame for the accident...unless you have a more valid reason that I can't think of.

He was a commercial truck driver and under Federal law he is required to submit to testing and local and state law enforcement can administer those tests. It is a warrantless requirement and is done without regard to fault.

The federal law also specifically preempts state and local law and is covered under the exceptions discussed in the Scotus ruling (other than exigent).

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Look at it this way: To some of us, preserving the absolute protection against unreasonable search/seizure (which unlawful blood draw falls under) is worth fighting for, not just allowing to happen and hope that the judicial system throws out the illegally obtained evidence.

and there are established exceptions to the 4th amendment so its not as absolute as you are trying to portray it. Those exceptions include warrantless searches in some circumstances. as I stated the liability falls on the officer and not medical staff. They hold different responsibilities and a nurse interfering in a legal area is just as stupid as a cop telling a doctor how to perform patient care.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
And that's really the crux of the issue, IMHO: The nurse was right in her refusal, the hospital policy was drafted within the confines of the law, and a patient's rights were protected against an apparently poorly trained officer who used way more force than necessary to arrest Nurse Wubbles.

Based solely on Hospital policy but not Federal law.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I'm not okay with illegally obtained evidence, and having worked in courtrooms with attorneys on both sides of the room and directly for judges, I know how much two of those three people abhor illegally obtained evidence as well.

Then you know that protections apply in criminal cases when criminal activity is the focus of the investigation. Just as a persons 5th amendment doesnt apply until that person is A - in police custody and B - Being asked guilt seeking questions. People dont understand a person can kill someone, be investigated, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death without ever having their Miranda warnings given to them.

As for illegally obtained evidence the courtroom and a judge is exactly where it belongs since its the job of the judge to decide those issues - not medical staff.

It is not as black and white as people think it is.

Removing the officer from te equation, because as I have stated he acted improperly, I wont completely exonerate the medical staff until the investigation is complete. They had a hand in what occurred and i want the full review before letting them off the hook.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

She was taken outside to prevent her from causing a scene in the ER.

The cops 'caused a scene', not her.

Inside a hospital, directed at staff, no less.

Why you think this went viral?

Because the nurse and er lawyer wanted it to while at the same time failing to provide all relevant info in her story..

Thats called spin, like you're doing. Hats off, I'm usually the one to swim against the current...

I try to have the facts on my side though.

No the cop went to take her into custody and she created the scene by whining and trying to prevent it.

and no, and edited video of 2 minutes instead of the hour+ initial encounter not on video is what you are using.

The hospital has their own footage of the entire incident from their surveillance systems in the ER. Why arent they showing the that in completeness instead of just 2 minutes of a 20+ min body cam footage?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
and yet in previous incidents where a blood draw is requested in fatality accidents there was not an issue ...

This is a comment that I cannot verify, and there are too many variables in the reasons why blood can be drawn to give an intelligent response.

As for legal / illegal under Federal law its legal and required for commercial truck drivers. How do we know that wasnt the reason the Logan officer made the request? Using this thread as an example only the LEO's knew about it.

I'm ignorant to the verbiage of the federal law, but it would seem to me that blood could only be drawn without consent for commercial truck drivers if they are the cause of an accident/incident, not simply the victim of one...but knowing how laws are written, I could be totally incorrect.

Well no, she wasnt. she was within Hospital policy and that Policy was not the same as the Police Policy. Secondly, if you want to get technical, she did in fact obstruct and a case can be made for resisting arrest as well when she jerked away and then moved away when he was taking her into custody. Using the testing laws the legal burden falls on the officer and not medical staff. They are immune from civil and criminal liability related to blood draws done at the officers direction. Since she wasnt being asked to do the draw....

No, I'm not arguing policy versus policy, I'm arguing policy versus law, and the hospital's policy was backed by the law. Whether she was asked to do the draw is, IMO, irrelevant, as it appears that the victim was her patient, and it's her job as his nurse to assert authority over what happens to her patient while under her care, ESPECIALLY by non-hospital staff.

If you want to talk about technicalities, sure, she "resisted" an inappropriate arrest, but she wasn't charged, and I guarantee that she won't be. The officer was absolutely wrong to pursue her arrest the way that he did and with the relative force that he did, at least as far as the video is concerned. You can disagree if you'd like, obviously, but I can guarantee you that a good--or just competent--attorney would get that charged dropped.

If you want to argue that LEOs need to be given the latitude to make a mistake here and there (which I agree with), they you must be willing to apply the same logic to citizens who are suddenly approached by an officer attempting to take their phone and arrest them for following hospital policy (which, again, was perfectly within the confines of the law). Regardless, he could have approached the actual arrest much better and it probably would not have resulted in the same reaction from her...probably. But we can't know, because he chose to do what he did, and she naturally reacted the way that she did.

He was a commercial truck driver and under Federal law he is required to submit to testing and local and state law enforcement can administer those tests. It is a warrantless requirement and is done without regard to fault.

The federal law also specifically preempts state and local law and is covered under the exceptions discussed in the Scotus ruling (other than exigent).

Okay, having worked for and with lawyers, I understand that wording of laws matters. Assuming that you're referencing this federal code, I must note that it specifically cites "As soon as practicable following an occurrence..." as the timeframe in which a test MUST be done. It does go on further to note that BAC testing attempts should cease after 8 hours post accident, and the employer must record a reason if the test is not completed within 2 hours. With a controlled-substance test, the attempts should cease after 32 hours.

So, are you implying that within 8 hours of the accident, at minimum, the arresting officer or his superiors or anyone else on the scene could not organize themselves enough to get a warrant for the blood?

Of a more particular note, though, is §382.303(e), which reads:

(e) A driver who is subject to post-accident testing shall remain readily available for such testing or may be deemed by the employer to have refused to submit to testing. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the delay of necessary medical attention for injured people following an accident or to prohibit a driver from leaving the scene of an accident for the period necessary to obtain assistance in responding to the accident, or to obtain necessary emergency medical care.

What this paragraph is telling me is two-fold: (1) It implies that a driver can refuse to submit to testing (and his own employment peril), and (2) that the mandate to test for alcohol and controlled substances during a fatality accident (regardless of fault) does not supersede the need to allow proper and necessary emergency medical care to the driver. And while the driver is in the care of the hospital--the emergency care because he was in a coma--the hospital's policies concerning blood draws go into effect, especially since they align with state laws, and the federal law, IMO, says that medical care trumps the need for a blood draws or tox screenings.

and there are established exceptions to the 4th amendment so its not as absolute as you are trying to portray it. Those exceptions include warrantless searches in some circumstances. as I stated the liability falls on the officer and not medical staff. They hold different responsibilities and a nurse interfering in a legal area is just as stupid as a cop telling a doctor how to perform patient care.

Well, I'm not trying to portray the 4th as an absolute anything, and we'll disagree on culpability falling on the nurse in this instance--and the cop had the responsibility to know better more than her.

Based solely on Hospital policy but not Federal law.

After reading, citing, and quoting the federal law, I will respectfully disagree, unless there is case law out there negating my interpretation of its verbiage and intent.

As for illegally obtained evidence the courtroom and a judge is exactly where it belongs since its the job of the judge to decide those issues - not medical staff.

And again, I think that it should have started with better training concerning the local PD--he's not a federal officer, and therefore should have been better trained on his state laws concerning implied consent and his authority to just demand a patient's blood. Things should not always have to get to a court room to know that someone was in the wrong.

Again, the medical staff acted appropriately, the officer did not. You don't have to agree--waiting to conclude what I already have is your prerogative--but my legal-focused mind is satisfied in this regard. But, hey, I've been wrong before, even when all evidence pointed to me being correct.

It is not as black and white as people think it is.

Probably because it was white and white.

Sorry, I needed a moment of brevity.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

According to the info Zaph provided, it's any time a commercial driver is involved in a traffic incident.

Fatality, significant injury requiring treatment, or severe vehicle damage. You'd have to go back several pages to find it, but I believe it's automatic regardless of who's at fault for an incident.

I don't agree with Xcath, but I admire his tenacity ..51 pages of this, it's an untenable situation..the police were wrong period.
I don't care about what legalities are involved(questionable at best anyway) this is about right and wrong..and shame for trying to protray the nurse in any kind of bad light..that's classless.
The hospitals policy overrides police wishes..in this case anyway..they do owe an explanation, if the police did not like it..go to a judge and get a damn warrant(which may not have been entertained by said judge)

a reply to: Shamrock6

I noted that fault doesn't matter...I get that part of it. My whole point of discussing the actual law and citing it is to note that medical care trumps the need for blood draws, and when a man is in the emergency room in a coma, given the time limits associated with the blood draws, any decent attorney would be able to logically argue that, even with the federal law in existence, the man's care was more important than the tox screenings.

There's no other reason why that paragraph would be included in the law and specifically note that medical care is a priority and can't be inhibited by the need to test for alcohol and/or controlled substances.

From my comment (just so you don't have to search to believe me):

What this paragraph is telling me is two-fold: (1) It implies that a driver can refuse to submit to testing (and his own employment peril), and (2) that the mandate to test for alcohol and controlled substances during a fatality accident (regardless of fault) does not supersede the need to allow proper and necessary emergency medical care to the driver.

originally posted by: vonclod
The hospitals policy overrides police wishes..in this case anyway..they do owe an explanation, if the police did not like it..go to a judge and get a damn warrant(which may not have been entertained by said judge)

Pretty much the conclusion that matters thus far...but only in this case. But I'm quite certain that a judge would have granted a warrant, had they just tried. They had eight hours post-accident in order to obtain blood for the BAC test, 32 hours for the controlled-substance test (to keep within federally mandated timeframes)--to tell me that handling it the way that they did was better than seeking a warrant is to speak a lie.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Honestly I sort of focused on the "may be ignorant of federal law..." paragraph in the comment I replied to of yours. If you acknowledged it as being the case elsewhere, I simply missed it. My bad

a reply to: Shamrock6

My comment was 8 days long...don't feel bad for missing it.

ETA: I ended up un-ignoranting myself on the law mid-comment

She is an AMERICAN HERO! And should be given a medal!

That cop and rest involved should never so much is allowed to be a security guard!

YOUR LAW???

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
and thanks from the department of the off-duty cop she was protecting (the patient)

How certain are you about this part? I haven't read yet anything about the patient she was protecting other than he was driving a truck and with a CDL at that. Is what you've said here verified?

Truly curious....

From this link -

The truck-driver victim of the crash was William Gray, a reserve officer with the police department in Rigby, Idaho, the department said in a statement Friday. He was working his regular job as a truck driver when a suspect fleeing from the Utah State Highway Patrol crossed into oncoming traffic and collided head-on with Gray's truck, Rigby police said. The department said it learned of the incident with Wubbels on Thursday and was grateful for her actions. "The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray's rights as a patient and victim," it said. "Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act." Rigby police said they hope the incident will be investigated thoroughly and "appropriate action" will be taken.

Posted the link above, but not the quote.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Why, would be to deflect some amount of culpability to the innocent driver..this whole deal was the result of a police chase gone bad..it's going to cost them dearly and they want someone else to share the blame..it ain't gonna happen.

I'd guess that was their plan, though. Makes no sense otherwise. How could forced blood work possibly "protect" the other driver? Glad it's not happening that way! I'd like to know why they were pursuing as they were, risking lives.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Verbiage of Federal Law -

(d)(1) Alcohol tests. If a test required by this section is not administered within two hours following the accident, the employer shall prepare and maintain on file a record stating the reasons the test was not promptly administered. If a test required by this section is not administered within eight hours following the accident, the employer shall cease attempts to administer an alcohol test and shall prepare and maintain the same record. Records shall be submitted to the FMCSA upon request.

Fatality accidents require it, regardless of fault. As for Employer people seem to forget that a lot of Commercial Truck Drivers are owner/operators. The guy was unconscious and with burn victims that state may be medically maintained for well after 32 hours given severity of burns and injuries.


Policy vs. Law -
There is some disagreement on this one so instead of rehashing I will just agree to disagree.

Resisting an arrest -
It is a separate charge and stands alone and people can be charged with it even if the initial reason for the arrest is thrown out. See Shamrock6's thread in his signature line.

Latitude to work -
The courtesy should be extended to everyone however it should stop when it goes beyond a persons knowledge, like say the laws involved. Had the nurse cited laws it would be one thing however simply showing a policy isnt really an argument that should extend for more than an hour.

Officer's actions -
Completely agree and I have stated many times he should have handled it better. The Lt. ordering the arrest if she interfered keeps coming to my mind though and want to know the reasons behind it. The moment he found out a blood draw occurred the situation ended. Something medical staff could have easily and legally disclosed to law enforcement. They didnt do that though so I come back to the thought process of why?

Federal Motor carrier law -
I am saying that may have been the cause for wanting the blood in the manner they chose to procure it. Until we know what the Logan investigator was thinking in the request its of course speculation. As for the medical treatment portion, again I would be more than willing to accept that except for the fact medical staff never once raised the patients medical status as a reason for refusing the request. They chose Hospital policy without having all the facts or understanding of the various laws that come into play.

The driver has 2 hours after an accident for alcohol testing and 32 for drugs.


4th amendment and culpability -
If you reread what I said, I stated culpability falls on the officer and not medical staff. In fact medical staff would be immune from criminal and civil repercussions under existing law in that scenario. Even more so since the detective was doing the blood draw and not medical staff.

Training -
The federal law allows for state and local police to act in their capacity with their results being accepted under federal law. It is not the job of a nurse to do a point counter point with law enforcement on the legalities of something that clearly falls under law enforcement's purview though and you having worked in the courts must have seen this occur. My point being is if medical staff is going to debate the finer points of criminal law then they should have a background in it before doing so. It is not her job... If Law Enforcement takes an action (outside of the nurse using a patients medical condition as a basis for refusal) that medical questions / doesnt agree with then they are suppose to chart the objection in he patients chart to again, place liability on the officer and to formally recognize their disagreement with a course of action. That action protects the Hospital as well as the patient and again requires the officer to justify his actions to a court should something go that direction.


White on White -
More like the face of a clown

I love debating these typos of topics, even if I am wrong, as I always walk away learning something new. I am sure people view my debate as something more than it actually is but thats the way it goes I guess. Even Shamrocks has called me out on stuff ive gotten wrong and he doesnt agree with everything I say. I respect him for actually challenging some of my conclusions give nhe is in law enforcement.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

USP got a report of a reckless driver. When they tried to initiate a stop, the (now dead) driver took off. They've said that it was a "brief" pursuit.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Why, would be to deflect some amount of culpability to the innocent driver..this whole deal was the result of a police chase gone bad..it's going to cost them dearly and they want someone else to share the blame..it ain't gonna happen.

I'd guess that was their plan, though. Makes no sense otherwise. How could forced blood work possibly "protect" the other driver? Glad it's not happening that way! I'd like to know why they were pursuing as they were, risking lives.

nvm Shamrock answered it.

He was told he didn't need to get the draw. Guess he decide that leaving without it wasn't going to happen.

The officer at the center of controversy over his treatment of a Utah nurse was told not to worry about obtaining blood from an unconscious car crash victim in the hospital, but tried anyway, Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen told CNN Wednesday.
...
At the hospital, Payne relayed his difficulty in getting the blood sample to a Logan detective, who was not at the hospital, Jensen said. According to Jensen, the detective then informed Payne the Logan department could get the blood through other means.

"He didn't tell him you must cease and desist, he simply said 'don't worry about it, we'll go another way,'" Jensen told CNN.

Link

a reply to: roadgravel

Very interesting..I was wondering if the Logan dept/officer was going to make any kind of statement on this yuuuuge mess.

a reply to: roadgravel

Jensen said Logan police didn't pursue a warrant because they didn't initially realize the victim was unconscious. They had hoped to get the victim's consent, Jensen said.

"I don't know why he was frustrated," Jensen said of Payne. "I don't know why he acted the way he did."
It's "easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but I can't come up with a play that includes what happened," he said.
But Jensen declined to characterize Payne as a rogue officer.
"I know Jeff personally. I don't believe that's true," Jensen said. "But I don't condone how he managed himself that day."

a reply to: roadgravel

Now there goes the Logan PD chief making Dec. Payne look like a real jerk.

"He could have just packed up and gone home," Jensen added.

Looks like the facts are coming out.