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

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas



Interesting - She has no issues bitching to the media but declines to talk to the police review board. As I stated before there was more to this situation than the nurse and her lawyer were letting on. The hour and a half wait for starters is inconsistent with the claims she made that he was belligerent from the start. I think it is to protect the nurse on the off chance criminal charges are filed against her.

The detective did in fact tell the nurse she was under arrest, contrary to the CPRB report.

The nurse was direct escorted outside of the ER before being placed into handcuffs.

As I thought there is a history between SLCPD and medical staff interfering with SLCPD operations / investigations. A male nurse confirmed this when he told the detective that their "bosses were butting heads".

University Police also told the nurse that if the officer goes to arrest her they would not interfere, apparently because the nurse told them to protect her.

As I thought the nurse is the one who told the Lt., once he arrived on scene, that blood was taken. She failed to mention that during the entire few hour encounter to the detective - why?

As I thought law enforcement was using procedures for a cdl driver.

The LT. tells the Hospital COO that they found a work around to the many roadblocks the hospital is putting in front of law enforcement.

The results of the PCRB are political and make assumptions, inappropriately filling in the blanks to arrive at a conclusion. This is why PCRB are problematic as their investigation / review contradict there "assumptions" in their report. The PCRB report is contradictory to the evidence they reviewed, especially with regards to policy violations.

As for mistakes made by law enforcement during their duties -
HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA - The Supreme Court ruled courts need not throw out evidence of a crime even if the arresting police officer used unlawful tactics to obtain it.

There is a history between the Hospital, who thinks their policy reigns supreme, and law enforcement trying to do their jobs.



The basis of the PCRB conclusions -



The 3 policy violations by Det Payne -
1 - Inconsiderate contact
2 - Failed to complete a full use of force report in the time frame allowed
3 - Violation of Blood draw policy


What it means -
1 - He was mean to the nurse
2 - Did his main report but did not do a use of force supplemental
3 - He actually complied with their blood draw policy and contacted a supervisor (this also covers arrests).


The policies in the CPRB report use terms, like "guidelines". This is important terminology as it places their policies and procedures into a category of being situation specific, allowing the guidelines to be modified / ignored / changed given the situation and facts involved.

The fact the CPRB report makes it a point to give their opinion of the nurses actions, even though she refused to take part in the review, is problematic since it uses the opinions of the CPRB members to reach a conclusion in place of the witness herself.

Thankfully the CPRB restricted themselves to the policy violations only instead of giving their opinions on the criminal investigation. Releasing the results of an IA investigation are also problematic since it doesn't allow all facts of the matter to be presented. This is evident i their guesswork and the number of redacted portions for garrity.

a reply to: diggindirt

No you intentionally took what i said and changed it to fit your agenda.

a reply to: diggindirt

and as i stated, something you apparently cant comprehend, is the Hospital policy was not the same as the police policy and it only changed after the incident.

The blood draw policy for the police allows for a warrantless blood draw with supervisor permission - This was obtained and the Lt. also cited exigent circumstances.
Arrests - The detective in his report stated she was detained. The CPRB ignored that. It also says misdemeanor arrests are to be completed via citation. This is a guideline and is situation specific.

But by all means continue to ignore facts.

a reply to: diggindirt

the detetive has a lawyer and a shark by the sounds of it but he will have his work cut out for him with the report released to day www.avvo.com... link to lawyers avvo page

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

The released report was only the IA investigation.

The criminal investigation is being handled by the unified police district and we wont see that until its submitted to the PA for review and only when the PA decides on charging / not charging anyone involved. Keep in mind the PA stated the criminal investigation was not directed solely at law enforcement.

The 42 USC 1983 investigation is being handled by the FBI and centers around any possible constitutional rights violations by a person acting under color of law. They are on their own timetable and its hit or miss on the FBI releasing information other than no violation occurred or a violation did occur.

www.slcdocs.com... it wont let me copy from pdf but it says that he didnt have reasons for a blood draw because none of the three conditions were met,the suspect was not under arrest ,he had no warrant and no probable cause for such ,and the " suspect" could not consent as he was unconscious.so despite what X has said there was no legal right to draw blood and the nurse was in the right

cant copy paste from pdf so i will copy using ex text but type it out so other people can see :

from page 18 of the PDF sub hedder analysis: "in reviewing this matter,it is clear that the lack of understanding of the law,confusion over when "implied consent" applies and the inability to get sound legal/policy advice were Major contributions to the bad outcome that occured. S Allowed himself to get too deeply invovled in what he belived the situation called for,THAT HE FAILED TO LISTEN to C AND OTHER HOPSTIAL EMPLOYEES who were attempting to show them their policy,WHICH WAS REFLECTIVE OF THE LAW AND AN AGREEMENT WITH SLCPD,lt tracy(garity protected for 3 lines" continues:He,of all the invovled policy personell,should have reached out to the Department's legal advisorand got a definate answer.He did resolve the issue once he was at the hosptial but only after det.Payne had placed C into handcuffs and seated her in police car,although his understanding of the situaton when speaking with S was not complete,his orders to Det. Payne were based on FAULTY knowlege of the underlying issue.his widly reported statement that he "redacted" continues: was ILL ADVISED and in this case WRONG,but he clearly made this statement beliveing his understanding to be corect and hers wrong. in the policy manual concering watch commanders it says the following " The watch commander represents the office of the cheif ,overseeing day-to-day feild opperations to ensure that orders and procedures are properly executed and professional standards maintained"

second quote :

the issue in play as it relates to S1 is did he comply with this directive from policy manual? the investigation noted that W was present during a signifigant portion of this interaction and noted "redacted" continues: He further knew that the underlying agency lacked probable cause to obtain a warrant for V's blood draw and made "redacted" continues: so,"redacted" continues: ,W knew that S was getting too emotionally involved in the situation and W should have more forcibly intervened,which PCRB agrees is not an easy choice to make.with an officer from the university police department also prsent,as well as the hospitals private security officers,the impetuus to not act would have been signifigant but as he"redacted" continues : . W should have attempted to use a code 909 in additon to his attempt intervene by calling S by name and "redacted" continues: there is no way to know if S would have reacted,but this intervention procedure was established for this exact fact set and it should ahve been attempted.W did not contribute to the situation but he also did not use every tool avaible to him to attempt to stop it and this inaction,it could be argued,allowed S to conintue to make bad decions with bad outcomes.

and one final quote (sorry for so much but it is relvent to the issue at hand)

Looking at the actions of S,the following are apparant: it does not appear that Det.Payne prepared and submitted a complete police report,with the required use of force report,as is called for in the above listed policy. It appears that Det payne opted to place C under arrest,Physically,rather then issue a citation as the policy manual planely spells out.Clearly,this is a Judgement call but the descion to make an arrest over a minor misdemeanor charge is generaly associated with factors other then just the underlyign offense.As it relates to this issue,and Despite S1's Advice/order to arrest c,it is utimately up to the arresting officer to make the decision to arrest,or not arrest,unless that officers supervisior is on-scene.so the choice to arrest c,vs simply citing her ,was S to make and so he is accountable for that decision.In reviwing the video and"redacted" continues: it is very clear that S,det payne,had become to emotionally invovled in the confrontation with C.His verbal actions were loud ,aggressive and overly mission driven.it apepared as if he belived he was faced with the commonly refered to perception of "contempt of cop" by C ,when in fact,the situation shows C was attempting to stop S FROM BREAKING THE LAW.now this whole line of reasoning becomes mruky as it is equally clear that both s and s1,belived S was acting,or wanted to act,in acordance with the law/policy.So,when you have two parites viewingthe same issue from exactly opposite points of view,and both parties beliveing they are correct,emotions can run high,and they did with S,but not so with C who remained remarkably coolduring this confrontation with a police officer .as it relates to who should have the knowlege of the legalities of the situation,This investigation finds that s1 should have known the most current law/policy,but also tempers that with knowlege that this is a very,very,small part of his supervisory duties.not to excuses his lack of knwolege on this important 4th amendement issue,but no one can know everything at all times.s however is held or should be held,to a much higher standard,despite his lower rank,as he "redacted" continues: infact ,s stated"redacted" contiues:you view the situation,one truth is apparent,s "redacted" continues so if S knew the law and ignored it,the issue becomes moot,if S didnt know the law/policy about blood draws ,his precption of C "interfearing" becomes somewhat understandable ,yet still objectively wrong.

again sorry for the wall of text but as its a 21 paige pdf i feel these all add to the context of the arguement that has been going on for 56 pages and what this tells us is the following : 1.the hopsital policy was inline with pd policy and officer Payne was ignorant of such . 2.the nurse correctly defended her patients constitutional rights agaisnt an over zelous officer who let his emotions get the better of him in an admittedly tense situation .3 the supervisor bears some but not all of the blame for this as well.4 ignorace of policy played a key part in this situation and the department intends to have more frequent trainings to prevent such incidents from happening again. 5. the officers poor behavior and ignorance of the law further complicated such matters and should have defered either to his legal department or the nurses superior knowlege of the law in question

a reply to: Xcathdra
You really do need to go to Utah or at least contact his attorney since you have all the answers that prove that the nurse was just a cop hater with a "history." I'm sure the cop would appreciate your help since he and his Lt. seem to be in some serious difficulties here.

You have yet to answer the question: When told to "forget about it" in regard to the blood draw, why didn't he just go home? With your superior "thinking" and imagination, I'm sure you can come up with a good excuse for his behavior from that time forward.

By all means, dear, just keep arguing with yourself and digging yourself deeper into the hole of bad behavior this guy began.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Yeah, those reviews are interesting.... Wonder if he is the union's lawyer? Sounds like a real jewel.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Exigent circumstances are a valid reason and under PD policy a warrantless blood draw is acceptable if a supervisor approves it. In this case the Lt. was contacted and approved in addition to arresting the nurse. Secondly the implied consent law being used was cited by the Lt., even though in the end it was wrong.


The Hospital policy was not inline with the PD policy until after the incident when the Mayor and Chief stated the pd policy was being changed.

The nurse is there to provide patient care and not do a point counterpoint over criminal law with the police. If she objects to an action they are to chart in in the patients chart to cover the hospital.

Ignorance of policy didnt lay a part in this. The PD policy was active at the time and the officer and Lt. complied with it. It didnt change until after the incident occurred. That falls on the training division and command staff responsible for policy and guidelines.

The detective, in addition to me and others, said he could have handled the situation differently than he did. As I pointed out though ignorance of the law and its application is case by case for law enforcement and a cited the scotus ruling on it.

As I stated, and its now confirmed, the Hospital and PD have had issues i the past about Hospital policy and their incorrect assumption that it trumps state law / local ordinance or applies to law enforcement - It does not. Medical staff confirmed this when a witness stated their bosses (police and hospital) were butting heads. The Lt. further confirms that with his comments on having issues in the past with the hospital and their policies and there interference with police actions. The nurse made the detective wait for over an hour and half, which the detective complied with and did so reasonably and calm. The nurse never disclosed a blood draw was taken until after she was detained and then only disclosed the information to the Lt.

Her behavior should be called into question as well since its clear from her actions she was a contributing factor to the escalation of events that led to the final outcome. Had she shared the blood draw info to start with the entire situation would have resolved itself right then and there.

Her willingness to go on national tv morning shows and distort what occurred by omitting relevant information and then her refusal to take part in the investigation is telling and troubling. Its easy to lie to the media without consequence. Not so much for police investigations.

Based on the info, and the new info, I dont see him facing charges or a sustained 42 usc 83 violation.

a reply to: diggindirt

The same laws that govern him govern law enforcement in other states chuckles. Answers - not at all. I am ppointing out the problems in the PCRB analysis and highlighting the errors they made in addition to their willingness to ignore reports and facts to sustain their complaint.

The only ones im arguing with are in this forum. You dont like it thats not my problem. My point is the nurse failed to disclose all the facts surrounding the incident when she went on tv a lied about it.

A fact you and others are more than willing to ignore for your own reasons.

but by all means you keep ignoring facts and pushing your agenda. Ill keep pointing out the facts and their application under law.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Yeah, those reviews are interesting.... Wonder if he is the union's lawyer? Sounds like a real jewel.

Really? 5 reviews over 2 years with no context and only one side of a story?

and you dont see the problem you are having with information?

People accuse my of only siding with law enforcement because of my background yet the same argument can be applied to you and several others in reverse. Your so intent on going after law enforcement you ignore anything that doesnt support your position.

A perfect example of why CPRB are problematic. They dont know the law or case law to adequately review what occurred. Your conclusion based on 5 reviews over 2 years with no clarifying context pr0oves that.

Detective Payne is scheduled to meet with the Chief on Sept 25th to give his side of the story / response to the CPRB report.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Interesting - She has no issues bitching to the media but declines to talk to the police review board. As I stated before there was more to this situation than the nurse and her lawyer were letting on. The hour and a half wait for starters is inconsistent with the claims she made that he was belligerent from the start. I think it is to protect the nurse on the off chance criminal charges are filed against her.

The detective did in fact tell the nurse she was under arrest, contrary to the CPRB report.

The nurse was direct escorted outside of the ER before being placed into handcuffs.

As I thought there is a history between SLCPD and medical staff interfering with SLCPD operations / investigations. A male nurse confirmed this when he told the detective that their "bosses were butting heads".

University Police also told the nurse that if the officer goes to arrest her they would not interfere, apparently because the nurse told them to protect her.

As I thought the nurse is the one who told the Lt., once he arrived on scene, that blood was taken. She failed to mention that during the entire few hour encounter to the detective - why?

As I thought law enforcement was using procedures for a cdl driver.

The LT. tells the Hospital COO that they found a work around to the many roadblocks the hospital is putting in front of law enforcement.

The results of the PCRB are political and make assumptions, inappropriately filling in the blanks to arrive at a conclusion. This is why PCRB are problematic as their investigation / review contradict there "assumptions" in their report. The PCRB report is contradictory to the evidence they reviewed, especially with regards to policy violations.

As for mistakes made by law enforcement during their duties -
HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA - The Supreme Court ruled courts need not throw out evidence of a crime even if the arresting police officer used unlawful tactics to obtain it.

There is a history between the Hospital, who thinks their policy reigns supreme, and law enforcement trying to do their jobs.

The basis of the PCRB conclusions -

The 3 policy violations by Det Payne -
1 - Inconsiderate contact
2 - Failed to complete a full use of force report in the time frame allowed
3 - Violation of Blood draw policy


What it means -
1 - He was mean to the nurse
2 - Did his main report but did not do a use of force supplemental
3 - He actually complied with their blood draw policy and contacted a supervisor (this also covers arrests).


The policies in the CPRB report use terms, like "guidelines". This is important terminology as it places their policies and procedures into a category of being situation specific, allowing the guidelines to be modified / ignored / changed given the situation and facts involved.

The fact the CPRB report makes it a point to give their opinion of the nurses actions, even though she refused to take part in the review, is problematic since it uses the opinions of the CPRB members to reach a conclusion in place of the witness herself.

Thankfully the CPRB restricted themselves to the policy violations only instead of giving their opinions on the criminal investigation. Releasing the results of an IA investigation are also problematic since it doesn't allow all facts of the matter to be presented. This is evident i their guesswork and the number of redacted portions for garrity.

You cannot give away a persons DNA without a warrant. You cannot just give a persons blood to a police officer because you took it for blood tests.

That's not how it works. The Police need a warrant, period -- the end. She told them that and he refused to get one. I don't care what kind of mental gymnastics you want to jump through to make her wrong, but you cannot defeat this argument. It's unlawful seizure of biological DNA samples if you just take them without a warrant.

It's against the law for her to give it to him without one, not to withhold it from him otherwise. She could have been arrested for handing it over.

Like what are you smoking?

a reply to: SRPrime

Read the thread before making claims that arent supported please. There is an exigent circumstance exception to a warrant. The Lt. also cited the driver was a CDL holder, which falls under different federal laws and not state laws.

Finally all the nurse had to do was tell the detective medical already took blood which would have ended the situation right then and there. Instead she chose to escalate with her actions. As I stated, and its now confirmed, there is a history between the Hospital and SLCPD with the hospital interfering in police investigations.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
As I stated, and its now confirmed, there is a history between the Hospital and SLCPD with the hospital interfering in police investigations.

Could you point out where it's been confirmed that this particular hospital has a history of interfering with police investigations?

I see the remark in a previous post of yours about a comment made by a male nurse but surely, as thorough as you like to be in your conclusions, you're not going to make such a conclusion based on one offhand comment made by one individual that for all we know was only made in reference to the context of this single situation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SRPrime

Read the thread before making claims that arent supported please. There is an exigent circumstance exception to a warrant. The Lt. also cited the driver was a CDL holder, which falls under different federal laws and not state laws.

Finally all the nurse had to do was tell the detective medical already took blood which would have ended the situation right then and there. Instead she chose to escalate with her actions. As I stated, and its now confirmed, there is a history between the Hospital and SLCPD with the hospital interfering in police investigations.

Are the police the ones responsible for obtaining a blood sample for CDL holders?

That seems kind of odd to me.

a reply to: Greven

They CAN be, but aren't necessarily. It depends on the location. Usually, as long as there is a hospital or clinic nearby, they will administer a drug and alcohol test.

a reply to: FraggleRock


I'm still scratching my head as to why he thinks the nurse was obligated to violate HIPAA laws, and discuss the patient's care and what medical procedures he had undergone, with Officer Payne.

a reply to: FraggleRock

Read the entire CPRB IA report. It is contained in there in S1 section.

The male nurse commented on it. The Lt. also commented on it -
* - "Your policy is constraining what I need"
* - "There is a very bad habit up here of your policy interfering with my law"

Page 11 of the full report.

As I noted before if this were a one off incident the language used would be different. It is not often you get a duty Lt. to respond to a situation, let alone order the arrest of a nurse, unless its an incident in a long line of incidents involving the Hospital and their belief they are not subject to the law. I say this having experienced similar situations with medical staff in my area.

It is not the job of medical staff to tell law enforcement how to do their job, let alone make a legal argument without knowing the law, as she did in this case. Medical is suppose to chart their objections in the patient chart and go from there. They are not to interfere / obstruct, as the nurse did in this case.

Even if law enforcement obtained blood and it was later used in a legal proceeding its the job of defense counsel to challenge the evidence, not medical staff.

Had the nurse given a medical restriction based on patient condition her refusal would have been more than valid and legal. She did not cite any medical issues to prevent law enforcement from making contact with the patient.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: FraggleRock


I'm still scratching my head as to why he thinks the nurse was obligated to violate HIPAA laws, and discuss the patient's care and what medical procedures he had undergone, with Officer Payne.

There are HIPAA exceptions for law enforcement investigations, including basic medical conditions. The HIPAA law is a federal law defined by state law. That includes the requirement of medical staff to report gun shot wounds and stab wounds as required by state law. They are required to provide medical status to law enforcement, including patient condition and updates on that condition. It includes basic care information and is essential information for investigations, even more so when the person is a victim.

If you are going to cite a law know what your talking about before giving false information on it.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule:
A Guide for Law Enforcement

Who is not required to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule?
Many entities that may have health information are not subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule, including:
•employers,
•most state and local police or other law enforcement agencies,
•many state agencies like child protective services, and
•most schools and school districts.

* - To report PHI to law enforcement when required by law to do so (such as reporting gunshots or stab wounds).

Utah State Law - HIPAA and Law Enforcement ***PDF LINK***