It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Greven
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.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
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"
originally posted by: FraggleRock
originally posted by: Xcathdra
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"
I require a higher burden of proof than an offhand comment by a nurse that applied to the context of this single situation and the flippant remarks of an annoyed officer before concluding that this hospital has a history of interfering with police investigations.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Yup and if you understood context you would realize the PD policy was changed AFTER the incident occurred.
At the time the incident occurred the Hospital policy and SLCPD policy were NOT the same. The nurse and her lawyer lied when they claimed they were the same. The Mayor and Chief confirmed that.
Oh man , you do realise that you are simply confirming to the rest of us that no matter what, you will not accept responsibility regardless of being right or wrong.
Didnt follow the conversation did you? What part of this is confusing you?
The policies werent the same.
The nurse and her lawyer claimed the police agreed to the hospital policy.
The mayor / chief said they changed their policy after the incident.
You up to speed now?
originally posted by: Xcathdra
Ignore the obvious, that is certainly your prerogative. There is a history between the Hospital and the Police and that is evident in the comments by medical and the Lt. Had there not been issues in the past the situation would have gone differently.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: Greven
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.
Zaph is correct in general however SLCPD policy requires a blood draw for law enforcement purposes be done by a member of their blood draw unit. That info is also included in the full CPRB release.
originally posted by: FraggleRock
originally posted by: Xcathdra
Ignore the obvious, that is certainly your prerogative. There is a history between the Hospital and the Police and that is evident in the comments by medical and the Lt. Had there not been issues in the past the situation would have gone differently.
You would require more information than what you've provided if the shoe were on the other foot and you damn well know it.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: Greven
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.
Zaph is correct in general however SLCPD policy requires a blood draw for law enforcement purposes be done by a member of their blood draw unit. That info is also included in the full CPRB release.
I'm not certain what your point is in bringing up police department policy here...
Is there some statute that requires the police department to obtain a blood sample for any CDL holder involved in an accident?
originally posted by: Xcathdra
Not really... the entire situation has to be reviewed from what the officer perceived since their use of force is being called into question.
Arresting a nurse is not something that happens, even in rare circumstances. The fact the Lt. went down this road coupled with his comments tells me there is a prior history between the Hospital and the PD. As I stated before, speaking from my own experience, I have witnessed the very same thing. Up to and including one incident where a prosecuting attorney had to respond to the hospital and explain to medical staff in the Er that regardless of what their policy state, they had a warrant and anyone refusing to comply would be arrested.
Hospitals have a bad habit of going overboard when it comes to treating patients. Policies that say patients cant be in handcuffs to how law enforcement is to act when patients are in custody are nice but dont apply to law enforcement, no matter how much hospitals whine about it.
Hospital's own policies are generally the cause of these situations. They need to stick to patient care and leave criminal law to the professionals.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra
No, he did not meet the criteria, that has been well established now. The blood draw was not lawful under Utah law.
This hospitals policy has a bad habit of interfering with my law.