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

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh I will lecture you, i have a suspicion your a fraud as far as being an officer. If you actually believe what you write your a menace to society as an officer.

ONE you get authority from the social contract. Perhaps you don't understand where the forefathers got their ideas and what the constitution is.

TWO the legislature writes laws not police officers who often misinterpret laws. This may come from state IQ caps.

THREE How can obese and out of shape officers be good police? They can't. It's your duty to be competent. Having a heart attack or being too out of shape to have tactical fire arms skills is not being a good cop.

By the way you never told what state trains officers to shoot out of vehicles? With what a 9mm with a heavy trigger?

As somebody who works with hand to hand technique and law enforcement I see through your BS. I seriously doubt your an officer.

When your out of shape and can't control your emotions you shouldn't be policing.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

Thanks for the quotations, but none of those apply.

I do not have sufficient remaining characters to continue here.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Continued from previous post.

Again, the patient was stated by the officers not to be a suspected of any crime and the only suspect was dead, therefore obstruction is not applicable.

Exigent circumstances are not "left to the officer's discretion." Birchfield is clear: get a warrant unless urgency precludes not 'when they arbitrarily feel they don't need to get a warrant:

The exigent circumstances exception allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant.

Justice Thomas argued as you seem to want to, that exigent circumstance always exists because an officer can decide it exists, but his argument fell flat against the majority opinion.

Exigent circumstance is examined for applicability based on the circumstances of the case, and the attempt to argue that a blood draw was authorized without a warrant by exigent circumstance because officers didn't bother to go get a warrant was found lacking, such as against Petitioner Birchfield.

Further, and this is what you keep avoiding, the officers seeking the evidence admitted that there was no suspicion of a crime by the patient. If there is no suspicion of a crime by the patient, then there is no probable cause to seize evidence from the patient. If there is no probable cause to seize evidence from the patient, then there is no backing for exigent circumstance.

As obstruction is not applicable and exigent circumstance also does not apply, an order to allow a blood draw is not lawful, thus resisting arrest is not applicable.

I don't have to provide evidence for "why blood draws from people involved in fatality accidents never became an issue before" because I am arguing the opposite and barring cause for a search, it should be applicable to those instances were they to have occurred.

You on the other hand keep arguing that a blood draw was justified through a variety of approaches, which is why I asked for you to provide a reasonable explanation as to why the police required the patient's blood as evidence.

Your argument that medical staff don't get to make determinations is ridiculous. People make determinations about the law all the time in order to act at all - from everyday interactions to legal proceedings. Whether those determinations hold is for the courts to decide, not the police. It seems like you have the whole thing backwards.

You might recall that one goes to the court to request a warrant for a search, which should have been done here and would have avoided all of these problems. Of the exceptions to the 4th Amendment, an officer utilizing exigent circumstance would have to defend that determination in court.

Give us the probable cause for searching the patient who was not suspected of a crime that could satisfy a warrant; if such probable cause exists, it could in theory satisfy exigent circumstance. At that point, we could argue further on exigent circumstance, but you have yet to demonstrate that a foundation existed for that exception to even be considered.

Further, if you feel those statutes still apply, specify the subsection that you feel validates their use.

Further, and this is what you keep avoiding, the officers seeking the evidence admitted that there was no suspicion of a crime by the patient. If there is no suspicion of a crime by the patient, then there is no probable cause to seize evidence from the patient. If there is no probable cause to seize evidence from the patient, then there is no backing for exigent circumstance.

Outstanding Rebuttal G !!

On a side note did you take a look at Sgt. Payne's departmental record, he's had a few how can I say it gracefully ...incidents in the past. That explains why he was on a blood draw detail and not out on the street.



Buck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

Man, I can't believe they didn't reccomend the county attorney's office charge her with obstruction and resisting arrest after all this time based on your erroneous application of law.

Maybe it's because she when she "resisted" she had not actually been informed she was under arrest and that exculpates her from that ridiculous misapplication.

Maybe it's because the subject of the requested blooddraw was not actually suspected of a crime, and therefore the officer had no reason to violate either the hospital's policy or the subjects 4th ammendment rights against unreasonable asshats.

That officer should have been charged, and so should his buddy who was clearly embarrassed and tried to calm him, but then decided to "not make waves" with the veteran officer.

a reply to: RadioRobert
It is overlooked that her fear was legitimate. It is fairly common that nurses are disrespected, abused, and assaulted.

Her reaction to Det. Payne's initial attack of striking out at her, whether in an attempt at knocking her cell phone out of her hands, or to physically strike her, can be an expected and normal response.

I have been physically struck while doing my job. Once by a patient that was angry with her doctor, and once by a family member that was angry because she felt the hospital was not adequately addressing her needs fast enough. Her comment was, "I don't give a damn about anyone else here, I want my mother to be seen now!"

As discussed in this Washington Post article, it is sometimes a natural response for a nurse to expect to be attacked when approached in an aggressive manner. Even by those that they serve.

“There has been an erosion of respect,” Cipriano said. She’s seen a steady increase over the years in the abuse nurses take. And often, because they’re in these high-stress situations, because their ethos is all about a patient’s comfort and safety, they simply take it. “We have to dispel that notion,” Cipriano said, “that being assaulted is just ‘part of the job’. It is not.” When Alex Wubbels screamed “you’re assaulting me” as she was being forced into a police car in Utah on that video, she was also speaking for thousands of other nurses, too. It’s time to listen.

Link

a reply to: gps777

and I have stated the detective should have handled the situation differently than he did.

originally posted by: windword
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.

uhm no she was arguing criminal law. You hang in their though.. You will eventually get one right.

a reply to: Xcathdra

(CNN)Salt Lake City police apologized Friday for arresting a nurse who, citing hospital policy, refused to let officers draw blood from an unconscious crash victim. The arrest of Alex Wubbels, who was later released without charge, was captured on body camera video that the police chief said was alarming.

originally posted by: luthier
Oh I will lecture you, i have a suspicion your a fraud as far as being an officer. If you actually believe what you write your a menace to society as an officer.

Incprrectly no doubt...

originally posted by: luthier
ONE you get authority from the social contract. Perhaps you don't understand where the forefathers got their ideas and what the constitution is.

It's called policing by consent and goes back to Britain, where most of our law enforcement basis comes from. Considering the Federal Constitution never applied to anyone outside the federal government until 1897 (starting with the 14th amendment in 1868 and continuing in Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago) you are a bit off. The founding fathers used the Magna Carta as a baseline for the constitution. Since you are lecturing maybe you can explain to us which amendment has never been applied to the states (hint: the 7th amendment).

Secondly it is not the job of Law Enforcement to protect the individual but rather society as a whole. If you have issues with that take it up with the US Supreme Court (DeShaney v. Winnebago County / Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Maybe educate yourself on the topic before looking like a fool by relying on your ignorance rather than facts.

originally posted by: luthier
TWO the legislature writes laws not police officers who often misinterpret laws. This may come from state IQ caps.

Correct and the executive branch enforces those laws. Law Enforcement is a part of the executive branch if you didnt know. Interpretation of laws can come from law enforcement as well as the Prosecuting Attorney, who can issue opinions on how they will enforce a law. It is up to the courts to determine if those interpretations are valid or not. Since you are highly unaware all states have laws that give discretion to the officer and how they do their jobs.

originally posted by: luthier
THREE How can obese and out of shape officers be good police? They can't. It's your duty to be competent. Having a heart attack or being too out of shape to have tactical fire arms skills is not being a good cop.

Considering you have never been in Law Enforcement your "analysis" is way off. How can an obese out of shape person be good citizens? See the idiotic corner you just boxed yourself into by thinking someones physical appearance is a factor in their competency?

originally posted by: luthier
By the way you never told what state trains officers to shoot out of vehicles? With what a 9mm with a heavy trigger?

Once again you prove my point that your incapable of reading and understanding posts. That comment was made in relation to policy / procedure / guidelines and how those guidelines can be set aside based on situation. It goes back to people thinking policies are law and are absolute black and white when they arent.

originally posted by: luthier
As somebody who works with hand to hand technique and law enforcement I see through your BS. I seriously doubt your an officer.

When your out of shape and can't control your emotions you shouldn't be policing.

Your opinion, which is based on ignorance and a severe lack of knowledge, means nothing and has no bearing what so ever on how law enforcement functions. Your basic lack of knowledge, demonstrated time and time again, on topics covered in grade school is concerning to say the least. Teaching hand to hand techniques means you can teach someone how to fight / defend themselves /disarm people - but it ends there. You ignore the fact that the officers you teach are the ones who have to choose how to use the techniques you taught and whether or not your teaching is appropriate for any given situation they find themselves in.

When you learn the basics, like Constitutional and Statutory law, then feel free to come back and take another crack at giving someone a lecture. Given your posts to date I wont hold my breath that you are going to actually learn anything in this area and will instead choose to substitute your ignorance for reality.

a reply to: Greven

They do apply actually since they have nothing to do with the patient but the nurses interaction with law enforcement.

Medical staff does not get to decide how criminal law, which I have consistently stated in my posts, is applied.

By denying access to the patient she obstructed.
By pulling away from the detective and trying to walk away, coupled with her trying to pull away from the detective is resisting.

originally posted by: flatbush71

Further, and this is what you keep avoiding, the officers seeking the evidence admitted that there was no suspicion of a crime by the patient. If there is no suspicion of a crime by the patient, then there is no probable cause to seize evidence from the patient. If there is no probable cause to seize evidence from the patient, then there is no backing for exigent circumstance.

Outstanding Rebuttal G !!

On a side note did you take a look at Sgt. Payne's departmental record, he's had a few how can I say it gracefully ...incidents in the past. That explains why he was on a blood draw detail and not out on the street.



Buck

Except for the fact exigent circumstances are decided by law enforcement and not medical staff. It is not the job of medical staff to play point-counterpoint.

a reply to: RadioRobert

If you set the sarcasm and ignorance aside for a moment and read the facts surrounding this incident you might have noticed the PA's office is investigating and has flatly stated all individuals involved are being looked at for potential criminal prosecution and not just the Detective and his Lt.

Let me ask you this -
Was the patient still unconscious at the time the detective was at the Hospital?

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Except in this instance, and the laws in question, places responsibility of the person reasonably knowing the person making the arrest is a police officer.

In this case she knew the detective was a police officer and dealt with him for several hours before she was taken into custody. So your offered defense doesnt hold any legal weight.

a reply to: windword

Yes and I still say you have no idea what you are talking about. Hospital policy or having the status as medical personnel doesnt make you immune from an arrest.

Secondly the policy you keep relying on didnt apply to law enforcement at the time of the incident..

you go right ahead and keep ignoring facts though.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

They do apply actually since they have nothing to do with the patient but the nurses interaction with law enforcement.

Medical staff does not get to decide how criminal law, which I have consistently stated in my posts, is applied.

By denying access to the patient she obstructed.
By pulling away from the detective and trying to walk away, coupled with her trying to pull away from the detective is resisting.

Just answer this one fundamental question:

What do you believe the justification for a warrantless blood draw was?

Exigent circumstance is an exception to 4th Amendment protections against warrantless search/seizure. Exigent circumstance is not in and of itself a justification for a warrantless search/seizure.

Again, give us a reasonable justification for the search to begin with - the foundation that must be laid prior to exigent circumstance even coming into play - what justified a search and seizure?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RadioRobert

If you set the sarcasm and ignorance aside for a moment and read the facts surrounding this incident you might have noticed the PA's office is investigating and has flatly stated all individuals involved are being looked at for potential criminal prosecution and not just the Detective and his Lt.

Let me ask you this - Was the patient still unconscious at the time the detective was at the Hospital?

Let me ask you this one more time---it's been asked over and over and yet you avoid answering---

Why did the cop not go home when told that the requesting agency had withdrawn the request to his agency? Long before the abuse began he was told they would do it another way and yet he persisted, he lied each and every time he renewed the request and when he slapped and abused her, he knew full well that the request had withdrawn.

originally posted by: Greven
Stop going in circles. Just answer this one fundamental question:

What do you believe the justification for a warrantless blood draw was?

Exigent circumstance is an exception to 4th Amendment protections against warrantless search/seizure. Exigent circumstance is not in and of itself a justification for a warrantless search/seizure.

Again, give us a reasonable justification for the search to begin with - the foundation that must be laid prior to exigent circumstance even coming into play - what justified a search and seizure?

Not going in circles however you are failing to understand the post and the law.

The blood draw is not material to violation of the 2 laws cited. By refusing access (obstruction) to the patient she obstructed. Was the patient conscious at the time the detective showed up? Could the patient have been given consent if the detective had access to the patient? What was the patients condition at the time?

By refusing to comply with the arrest she resisted.

This is not a hard concept to understand. Medical staff are not law enforcement and cant decide if an officers actions are relevant to the situation, let alone try and argue criminal law with them. They chart their objections and move on from there. Aside from a patients life being in imminent jeopardy medical staff has no right to interfere with an investigation and even then some circumstances will allow law enforcement to disregard medical staff objections (dying declarations / another party in imminent danger / etc).

Are you understanding what i am saying now?

originally posted by: diggindirt
Let me ask you this one more time---it's been asked over and over and yet you avoid answering---

Actually I have answered it. You and some others apparently refused to read or you didnt understand it.

originally posted by: diggindirt
Why did the cop not go home when told that the requesting agency had withdrawn the request to his agency? Long before the abuse began he was told they would do it another way and yet he persisted, he lied each and every time he renewed the request and when he slapped and abused her, he knew full well that the request had withdrawn.

The other agency didnt withdraw their request and the Chief of that agency stated this. They never told the detective to stop.

Why didnt the nurse tell the detective when he first made contact they already took blood? A question asked that you guys have refused to answer.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You even posted part of the story where the chief said the department told him not to worry about because they would go another way. What part of that do you not understand?

The question you've asked hasn't been avoided at all. You are just trying to deny facts because the facts are inconvenient for your defense of this brute. The nurse didn't tell him because she had no obligation to do so until he presents paperwork showing his standing in the matter. He had no paperwork from any authority so he had no standing to learn anything about that patient or the patient's condition.

Why don't you go on down to the local hospital and start demanding information about random patients without any paperwork and see how far you get... If you were really a police officer who has dealt with hospitals you would know that they run on paperwork, not the word of random cops who show up and make demands.