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

a reply to: luthier

Yeah that incident is from like 2013 and not this incident.

In this incident he was dinged for "violating" 3 policies -
1 - Manners / curiousness
2 - violating 909 (officer to emotionally involved)
3 - failing to complete a use of force report per department policy (apparently they view the handcuffing and directed escort as a use of force).

That is from the CPRB who are not trained law enforcement.

Hence the reason the chief has a meeting with the Detective to hear his side of the story.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: dreamingawake

Why is any one surprised? That's what will happen to you when you stand up for what is right. You will be arrested and what that entails may be hurtful, violent and the list goes on.

Who is in power...not you obviously.

you have completely missed the point.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lol,..

Your completely rediculous.

Hospitals have laws they are bound to by Congress silly.

Boy you really have no idea.

Can you point to a case where a victem of a hit and run, commercial or non, had a comatose blood draw forced by law enforcement over the wishes of a medical senior staff member?


Your literally incapable of law enforcement if you believe your rhetoric.

How much money are you willing to bet these officers are not repremanded? Seriously...there must be a legal place we can make this bet...

Have you ever read the laws around patients rights and warrants?
You keep posting irrelevant examples that have no legal precedence in this case.

a reply to: luthier

Since you have no idea how laws work and who makes them, let alone how they apply, dont try and lecture me on them ok.

Hospitals are also bound by the laws that make it a crime to resist an arrest. Its a crime for hospitals to obstruct a law enforcement investigation.

and since you are apparently lost the nurse wasnt arguing medical law. she was arguing criminal law but why worry about facts.

a reply to: [post=22684583]Xcathdra[/p


Semantics, you still have not answered the question. If he was told by the requesting agency "don't worry about it, we'll go another way" Why did he not just leave and let them "go another way" No matter how many posts you make it does not change the fact it was an unlawful request and an unlawful arrest, everyone sees this except you, so ask your self this, is it more likely everyone else is wrong and you are the only one right, or that you are wrong and everyone else has got it right?

a reply to: norhoc

No not semantics.

Because at the time medical still had not disclosed to him that they already took a blood draw. Secondly, as has been stated time and again, the policy he was using was out of date.

Even the University police department, who was called to intervene, told the nurse it was a criminal matter and they would not intervene to protect her. Their chief also stated their policy was out of date as well, and they are employed by the same entity as the Hospital employee.

An unlawful arrest is decided by a judge, not a nurse, witnesses or people online. and again its against the law to resist an arrest, regardless if it is later ruled illegal.

a reply to: Xcathdra


1) They are not required to tell him they already did a blood draw, if the police asked I am sure they would have answered the question


2) Exactly- The PD policy was out of date and wrong, hence them changing it after the fact to match the hospitals policy. The PD is not going to change their policy if they are in the right.


3) The university Police clearly did not know the law and was just deferring to SLCPD.


4) It may be against the law to resist an arrest but that does not change the fact this was an unlawful arrest and any judge worth their weight is not going to uphold a resisting arrest charge that happened during an unlawful arrest.

originally posted by: norhoc

1) They are not required to tell him they already did a blood draw, if the police asked I am sure they would have answered the question

Since the guy was an assault victim in a valid law enforcement investigation yes, the hospital is.

originally posted by: norhoc
2) Exactly- The PD policy was out of date and wrong, hence them changing it after the fact to match the hospitals policy. The PD is not going to change their policy if they are in the right.

Yet valid at the time of incident. You guys keep ignoring that fact. Given the way the Mayor and Chief responded and the Mayors public statements since it was done based on pr and politics.

originally posted by: norhoc
3) The university Police clearly did not know the law and was just deferring to SLCPD.

No they had the same policy as SLCPD. As stated it was a criminal matter, an area medical staff has no business arguing about.

and again it was valid at the time.

originally posted by: norhoc
4) It may be against the law to resist an arrest but that does not change the fact this was an unlawful arrest and any judge worth their weight is not going to uphold a resisting arrest charge that happened during an unlawful arrest.

Resisting arrest charges are separate offenses and yes judges do uphold them, even if they rule the initial arrest was unlawful. the reason they do that is to dissuade the public, specifically people who think they know the law when they dont, from creating a situation that would allow law enforcement to use force to overcome the level of resistance being encountered.

the proper setting to argue those points is in a court room and not roadside.

a reply to: Xcathdra



You will never admit you are wrong, and you are, so I am done with you, you can go on convincing yourself for another 62 pages all you want that you are the only person that is right about this and everyone else is wrong. That is the behavior of an insane person to believe you are the only right person, but good luck with that

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

Your right police policy is not the law. However police policy applies to the police and Hospital policy does not. Secondly law enforcement are the ones required by law to enforce the laws and not medical staff.

Scotus has not "repeatedly" upheld that. aside from Mcneely N. Dakote is the only other ruling dealing with it and was due to states like N. Dakota who have criminal penalties for refusing to comply with implied consent laws.

Up until this latest ruling states implied consent laws allowed a blood draw as one of the valid tests law enforcement could request. Utahs implied consent law only applied civil (administrative) penalties for refusal and the scotus ruling upheld those laws as constitutional.

Exigent circumstance is a valid exception to the warrant requirement and its up to law enforcement to make that decision, including the justification, and not medical staff. Each case is revived on an individual basis and the scotus ruling in N. Dakota states as much. An exigent circumstance exception can apply to unconscious patients and if you read the entire ruling you would know that.

The ruling in Mcneely only revolved around blood metabolizing alcohol as not qualifying as an exigent circumstance because it is a natural body process and not an intentional destruction of evidence. Again you would know this if you read the ruling.

Yes - victim of a head on crash that was intentional, making it a 1st / 2nd degree assault case on the driver of the semi (victim).

Which supersedes the 4th amendment? Well in Mcneely and N. Dakota scotus said an exception to the warrant requirement would be an exigent circumstance and they left it undefined and for very good reason. It is left to the officer to decide if the situation is an exigent circumstance - NOT medical staff. It is up to the court to decide if the exigent circumstance is valid or not - NOT medical staff.

It is not the purpose of medical staff to interfere in a law enforcement investigation. Anything collected by law enforcement that is in violation of the 4th amendment / active laws becomes inadmissible in court and any and all evidence derived from the evidence disqualified is considered fruit of the poisonous tree and is also thrown out (some exceptions exist, like inevitable discovery etc but again, thats for a court to decide).

Under Utah law who is mandated to investigate suspected violations of criminal law - Law Enforcement or Medical Staff?

Under Utah Law is is responsible for and authorized to deny a person their freedom via an arrest - Law Enforcement or Medical Staff?

Under scotus rulings what happens when a trained professional, like a police officer or medical staff, acts outside their level of expertise or "switches hats" in the middle of a situation?

Here is the thing -
It is not the job of Medical Staff to tell law enforcement what they can or cannot do. They can object and cite their policy and then they are required to chart it if law enforcement disregards it. The ONLY time medical can deny law enforcement access is if they can cite medical reasons for doing so and only then the patients life must be in imminent danger. Even then, depending on the situation, law enforcement can still push the issue under dying declarations or the retrieval of information that involves another persons whose life is in imminent danger.

The Hospital policy does NOT make any exceptions per the scotus ruling and that Hospital policy wont protect a nurse who tries to hide behind it and is subsequently arrested and charged because of an exigent circumstance.

You want to try and make a black and white line take a roll of the dice. In the end the judgment of law enforcement in those situations will take precedence over Hospital policy.

Yes they have. I've given you several cases showing as much.

Now you're left with exigent circumstance, which only applies if the person is suspected of a crime and/or under arrest. The patient was not.

You cannot use it for a fishing expedition no matter how much you desperately want to.

I don't care about hospital policy and I don't care about police policy. Your pushing those angles only illustrates how reaching the argument that a warrantless blood draw was permissible was.

E: In case it's simply not clear enough, here's what Birchfield says:

"The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. The impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for BAC testing is great," Alito wrote. But "we reach a different conclusion with respect to blood tests. Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant."

Simple solution that would have avoided any 'trouble' from the hospital: get a warrant.
Complication to obtaining a warrant in this particular case: the patient was not a suspect.

If you persist in the misguided belief that cops can do whatever the hell they think they can do, which is your implication by your continued utterance of exigent circumstance, I would advise to you read over this and contemplate just a wee bit:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The justice system has diminished these protections over time, but they're still written there for all to read.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: norhoc

and again its against the law to resist an arrest, regardless if it is later ruled illegal.

Plummer v Indiana and Bad Elk v US have been cited and upheld in multiple cases to the contrary.

Would she have been wise to go along with the false arrest in this case? Probably. But it doesn't make her culpable for resisting arrest anymore than if she tried to walk away from Joe Blow on the street who was attempting to illegally detain her.

Is there a Colorado ruling that supercedes the SCOTUS ruling or is the Colorado statute written in such a way that precludes the application of Plummer v State of Indiana?

a reply to: norhoc

and yet ive stated the officer was wrong and could have acted differently. The only differences of opinion is in relation to the nurse. I feel she is partly responsible and you guys dont.

Your also left with federal law governing cdl's, which the Lt. talked about. In addition to the fact people involved in fatality accidents often have blood drawn as a normal course of the investigation. The validity of those draws is up to the courts and NOT medical staff.

a reply to: Greven

and in every single one of those cases the person in question was conscious. Only in N. Dakota did scotus address the unconscious part and stated that a warrant should be obtained unless an exigent circumstance exists. They only did so in dealing with warrant exceptions.

cite the 4th amendment all you want.. it does NOT apply to the individual their chief, it applies only to law enforcement.

None of which has anything to do with the laws in question and how the nurse violated those laws. so next time understand my post and position before taking it all out of context and spreading false information.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Yeah case law from over a 100 years ago has no bearing on the current cases that have settled the right to resist question. A person does not have a right to resist an arrest. Only the courts can decide if an arrest is lawful or unlawful.

as stated resisting is a separate charge and judges have upheld those charges even when the original arrest was ruled invalid.

ATS - The right to resist arrest and YOU!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

and in every single one of those cases the person in question was conscious. Only in N. Dakota did scotus address the unconscious part and stated that a warrant should be obtained unless an exigent circumstance exists. They only did so in dealing with warrant exceptions.

cite the 4th amendment all you want.. it does NOT apply to the individual their chief, it applies only to law enforcement.

None of which has anything to do with the laws in question and how the nurse violated those laws. so next time understand my post and position before taking it all out of context and spreading false information.

Which laws did the nurse violate, because I sure don't see any citation of laws violated by the nurse in your post.

All I see is the excusing of 4th Amendment violations and talking about irrelevant policies.

Speaking of such, indeed unconscious people are mentioned in Birchfield:

It is true that a blood test, unlike a breath test, may be administered to a person who is unconscious (perhaps as a result of a crash) or who is unable to do what is needed to take a breath test due to profound intoxication or injuries. But we have no reason to believe that such situations are common in drunk-driving arrests, and when they arise, the police may apply for a warrant if need be.

They do mention the exigent circumstance, as expected, as a potential exception:

In instances where blood tests might be preferable—e.g.,where substances other than alcohol impair the driver’s ability to op-erate a car safely, or where the subject is unconscious— nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception if it applies.

Yet, this is what they define exigent circumstance to be:

The exigent circumstances exception allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.
...
In Schmerber v. California, we held that drunk driving may present such an exigency.
...
More recently, though, we have held that the natural dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream does not always constitute an exigency justifying the warrantless taking of a blood sample. That was the holding of Missouri v. McNeely

Which leads to their dual conclusions. The first is the most relevant to this incident:

We reach a different conclusion with respect to blood tests. Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availa­bility of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Respondents have offered no satisfactory justification for demanding the more intrusive alternative without a warrant.

The footnotes say it all:

Indeed, today’s decision provides very clear guidance that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless breath tests, but as a general rule does not allow warrantless blood draws, incident to a lawful drunk-driving arrest.

Sure there are a few holes perhaps people could poke into this opinion, but the gist is clear: the cops were in the wrong.

Worse is the fact they were trying to obtain evidence from an unconscious person whom they admitted was suspected of no criminal wrongdoing.

You have yet to explain why such irrelevant evidence would be necessary for any of these bizarre claims you've offered.

I mean... supposing you were correct and that, through some twist of legalese, the seizure of evidence in the form of a blood draw were permissible under the law - you have yet to explain the justification for obtaining such evidence in the first place.

As the patient was not suspected of any wrongdoing, there was no probable cause to search the patient and take the patient's blood. There is no reasonable explanation for their actions, as there was no investigation into the patient and the clearly-documented-on-video offender in the incident - which police already had evidence for - was dead. The patient clearly had nothing to do with the accident save for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, as illustrated on video.

Please, do give us a reasonable explanation as to why the cops required the patient's blood as evidence.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Seems to me her "resistence" begins as he reaches for her saying, "we're done". Just as I'd step away from someone aggressively reaching for me. He didn't inform her she was being arrested until after she tried to get away from him. And then he continues to use unreasonable force in the situation he emotionally escalates while commiting his unlawful arrest.
That's exactly what the case law addresses. She can't resist arrest if she doesn't know she's under arrest. He can't use unreasonable force, and it exculpates her from consequences of "resistance".
There's a reason she wasn't charged with resisting arrest (or anything at all for that matter). And if the department had been foolish enough to recommend charges to the county attorney's office they'd have been laughed at, just like you're being laughed at in this thread. And if that office had foolishly brought charges they would've been laughed out of the room by a jury of her peers with even semi-competent legal representation if thr judge allowed it to even go that far.
But continue on playing at guardhouse lawyer. You're also wrong about your gross misapplication of "exigent circumstance", but you probably already know that.

a reply to: Greven

Resisting

Effective 5/9/2017
76-8-305. Interference with peace officer.
(1) A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if the person knows, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another person and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(a) use of force or any weapon;
(b) refusing to perform any act required by lawful order:
(i) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(ii) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(c) refusing to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.
(2) Recording the actions of a law enforcement officer with a camera, mobile phone, or other photographic device, while the officer is performing official duties in plain view, does not by itself constitute:
(a) interference with the officer;
(b) willful resistance;
(c) disorderly conduct; or
(d) obstruction of justice.

Obstruction

76-8-306. Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.
(1) An actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constitutes a criminal offense:
(a) provides any person with a weapon;
(b) prevents by force, intimidation, or deception, any person from performing any act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person;
(c) alters, destroys, conceals, or removes any item or other thing;
(d) makes, presents, or uses any item or thing known by the actor to be false;
(e) harbors or conceals a person;
(f) provides a person with transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension;
(g) warns any person of impending discovery or apprehension;
(h) warns any person of an order authorizing the interception of wire communications or of a pending application for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications;
(i) conceals information that is not privileged and that concerns the offense, after a judge or magistrate has ordered the actor to provide the information; or
(j) provides false information regarding a suspect, a witness, the conduct constituting an offense, or any other material aspect of the investigation.
(2)
(a) As used in this section, "conduct that constitutes a criminal offense" means conduct that would be punishable as a crime and is separate from a violation of this section, and includes:
(i) any violation of a criminal statute or ordinance of this state, its political subdivisions, any other state, or any district, possession, or territory of the United States; and
(ii) conduct committed by a juvenile which would be a crime if committed by an adult.
(b) A violation of a criminal statute that is committed in another state, or any district, possession, or territory of the United States, is a:
(i) capital felony if the penalty provided includes death or life imprisonment without parole;
(ii) a first degree felony if the penalty provided includes life imprisonment with parole or a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding 15 years;
(iii) a second degree felony if the penalty provided exceeds five years;
(iv) a third degree felony if the penalty provided includes imprisonment for any period exceeding one year; and
(v) a misdemeanor if the penalty provided includes imprisonment for any period of one year or less.
(3) Obstruction of justice is:
(a) a second degree felony if the conduct which constitutes an offense would be a capital felony or first degree felony;
(b) a third degree felony if:
(i) the conduct that constitutes an offense would be a second or third degree felony and the actor violates Subsection (1)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f);
(ii) the conduct that constitutes an offense would be any offense other than a capital or first degree felony and the actor violates Subsection (1)(a);
(iii) the obstruction of justice is presented or committed before a court of law; or
(iv) a violation of Subsection (1)(h); or
(c) a class A misdemeanor for any violation of this section that is not enumerated under Subsection (3)(a) or (b).
(4) It is not a defense that the actor was unaware of the level of penalty for the conduct constituting an offense.
(5) Subsection (1)(e) does not apply to harboring a youth offender, which is governed by Section 62A-7-402.
(6) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to:
(a) tampering with a juror, which is governed by Section 76-8-508.5;
(b) influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a judge or member of the Board of Pardons and Parole, which is governed by Section 76-8-316;
(c) tampering with a witness or soliciting or receiving a bribe, which is governed by Section 76-8-508;
(d) retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant, which is governed by Section 76-8-508.3; or
(e) extortion or bribery to dismiss a criminal proceeding, which is governed by Section 76-8-509.
(7) Notwithstanding Subsection (1), (2), or (3), an actor commits a third degree felony if the actor harbors or conceals an offender who has escaped from official custody as defined in Section 76-8-309.

Yeah I know unconscious people are addressed in Birchfield vs. N. Dakota considering I stated it.

Exigent circumstances are left to the officer's discretion and are not defined by the ruling. They are giving an example that dissipation of alcohol does not qualify as an exigent circumstance as evidence being destroyed because its a naturally occurring function of the body.
Exigent Circumstance

Exigent circumstances - "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."

McNeely

In Missouri v. McNeely (2013), the Supreme Court clarified, "A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search,..................

The officer determines - NOT medical staff.

Give us a reasonable explanation as to why blood draws from people involved in fatality accidents never became an issue until this one incident?

As for the rest you completely missed the point. Nothing in the rulings is being questioned. What I AM stating is it is not the job of medical staff to make determinations on criminal law. That responsibility belongs to the police.

a reply to: RadioRobert

She was released without charges from the officers on scene. The detectives reports bumped it over to other detectives to review and file for charges if warranted.

As for what you would do if someone is trying to take you into custody thats all fine however its not relevant.

Again -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The determination on the lawfulness of an arrest belongs to the courts and not suspects , victims, witnesses, or medical staff.

Officers dont bring charges, the PA does that.

Like i said to the other poster. Nothing is being challenged in the laws or scotus rulings. Had you guys actually understood y posts you would notice I have stated many times now that the decisions in questions and in those rulings resides with the officer and NOT medical staff.

So, no, I would not be wrong.

originally posted by: Xcathdra


Give us a reasonable explanation as to why blood draws from people involved in fatality accidents never became an issue until this one incident?

Was it not you saying this was an ongoing issue with this hospital?

Incorrect. What Hospitals think they can do and what they can legally do are often in conflict.

If you`ve come close, odds are many other police have gone too far as in this case.

I have had issues with medical yes. Nothing to the extent of arresting but have come close and that would have occurred at the direction of the PA who was called to the Hospital.

I said it before and I will say it again, based on experience there is a history between this Hospital and Law Enforcement where they havent always gotten along. I make that statement also based on the fact his Lt. ordered him to arrest the nurse if she continued to interfere.

Look I can`t speak for most people but in general I think most people self included have a lot of respect for police officers, what we don`t like are officers such as the one in the video who are on a power trip, which is plain to see. You yourself have said numerous times that he could of handled it better. That we all agree on, guys like that need to take a big break or forced leave or be retrained.

I take my hat off to cops and mostly they do extraordinary work for people and the communities under alot of stress and horror. Big salute.

But if it gets to you where these lines are getting blurred please take a break, because that damages your (police in general) reputation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and since you are apparently lost the nurse wasnt arguing medical law. she was arguing criminal law but why worry about facts.

LOL, NOPE! Nurse Wubbles was arguing hospital policy. The legislators and the lawyers already argued every side of the law before the policy was made. The Salt Lake PD's policy wasn't up to snuff, so to speak.