Utah nurse settles over rough arrest caught on video

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

$500K isn't really a big amount.

Say whaaaaat?

Those cops can rough me up for half the price. Hell, id take 20 grand.

Well...take 1/3 for her attorneys...

Lawsuits these days can rack up millions of dollars...for punitive damages and actual damages. It's ridiculous IMO.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

$500K isn't really a big amount.

Say whaaaaat?

Those cops can rough me up for half the price. Hell, id take 20 grand.

Well...take 1/3 for her attorneys...

Lawsuits these days can rack up millions of dollars...for punitive damages and actual damages. It's ridiculous IMO.

Ahh right. I almost forgot for a moment we are living in the 'special snowflake' age. A wonderful time where we can feel justified in suing McDonald's for serving you hot coffee, (the horror!), that we foolishly spill on ourselves while driving, then sue for millions.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

$500K isn't really a big amount.

Say whaaaaat?

Those cops can rough me up for half the price. Hell, id take 20 grand.

I'd go even cheaper. No money, just let the officer serve the same jail time I would if I assaulted and handcuffed a cop while they were doing their job. He can even keep his job when he gets out, if he is still eligible.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Good for her--I despise a litigious society when so many lawsuits are frivolous in nature, but this one, and with all of the chances that the (ex) LEO had to correct his behavior and ultimately choosing to go the illegal-detention route, really validates this lawsuit and outcome.

I think that in the grand scheme of things, $500,000.00 is not ridiculous for someone having been illegally and forcibly removed from their job for doing the right thing, then illegally detained in a police vehicle without cause. Plus, she seems to have intentions to use some of the money in a decent way, so that's awesome.

(Ex) Officer Payne acted disgracefully, illegally, and unconstitutionally. He got a good chunk of what he deserved, but I'd still like to see criminal charges against him.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The criminal and civil rights violation investigations are still ongoing. Given Det. Payne appealed his termination even the IA portion is still incomplete.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

How come the nurses settlement is ok, she was detained for what?..20 mins, but the guy in Texas who received 1.3 mill..was falsely charged and spent 10 days in jail was not ok? to top it off the Texas incident the police clearly lied like mofo's.
I agree the nurse deserved her settlement.

photographyisnotacrime.com...

With all due respect just a serious question.

a reply to: vonclod

Different states - different laws.

Settlements usually occur when both parties agree to the terms. The other question is how likely would a court rule against the city / pd in a lawsuit and what potential damages could be awarded and would that amount be more or less than a settlement?

The other side is that cities are way to eager to pay out a settlement, regardless of fault, in order to calm down the community and to end any bad pr coming from the incident. Law Enforcement often times will be thrown under the bus by a city giving a settlement when the police did nothing wrong. All to make the bad pr go away.

City officials are politicians and have to run for election. Re-election is more important to them than the truth or standing by their employees.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok, thanks for your take on it, in the other thread Slapmonkey thought the 1.3 awarded to the Texan was way too much..to note, it was awarded via a jury, I'm guessing the nurse settled before court proceedings..she might of got more via trial I suppose.
I don't think 1.3 was too much to get for the 10 days, the false charge and all the possible ramifications that go with.
I just thought it odd that 500,000$ was ok for the nurses few hours but 1.3 mill was waaay too much for 10 days, the assault, and trying to potentially ruin the Texans life. Slap is a well read, knowledgeable guy, I just thought it inconsistent.

a reply to: vonclod

I have to agree with Slapmonkey. Now days we are sue happy and entities being sued are way to quick to shell out money to make the situation go away. That in turn reinforces the idea that if I sue I can make some quick cash.

We need major tort reform in this country.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree with you as it pertains to frivolous lawsuits.
So what is the right thing to do in the Texas case? how much should someone get for these guys charging and jailing him on a false felony? that kind of thing will ruin lives.
Also and why would it be different in the nurses case..I'm unclear on your thought on the nurses settlement.
Personally I think it's is unfair that the taxpayer foots the bill..I would like to see a kind of malpractice insurance for LE, short of being personally libel ..for cases such as the one in Tx.

a reply to: vonclod

The only restrictions i am aware of deals with suing a business in that any damages awarded cannot bankrupt the company in question. I need to refresh my memory on the specifics in that area though. Absent that I am not really aware of guidelines established for determining damages for people in the above situations. There might be, either in state law or in state supreme court rulings.

As for the difference between TX and the nurse the incidents occurred in 2 different states with different laws and state court rulings.

My opinion on the nurse is different than a lot of people. In my opinion the nurse broke the law and should not be entitled to any form of restitution. Insurance for law enforcement (at all levels) is more restrictive in that state laws are in place that specifically protects law enforcement in civil cases.

If an officer is sued (my state of MO is the example) they look at if the officer violated the law and or departmental policy. If the officer was in compliance on both they have whats called qualified immunity. It prohibits a civil case from being brought against the officer for their actions (the other is absolute immunity and applies to government officials / lawyers / judges / prosecutors etc).

I raised the points above in an effort to show how complex the legal system becomes when trying to sue government officials or bring criminal prosecution against them. The laws are in place specifically to prevent anyone from suing government officials with the only complaint being they dont like the person, their views or political leanings.

A person bringing a suit can speak to the media all they want. The people being sued cannot being its in their best interest not to reveal their defense strategy. Lawsuits can become long and drawn out (like my responses so my bad) and like I said before politicians are elected officials who have to be elected again at some point. They dont want issues hanging over them when election time comes. In addition, given the situation, the more something is in the news the greater chances it can affect tourism etc.

Payouts, imo, are more based on public relations and less on taking a stand and saying enough, we did nothing wrong and wont pay out. Given the current climate police have a rough time in this area since no real distinction is drawn between a moron cop who makes the news and the other cops who do their jobs with no issues. We are all lumped into one category and its easier for cities to thrown the police under the bus in hopes it appears like they are representing their constituents.

8 time out of 10 they are hurting their constituents by constantly paying out. If you get bored look into the amounts the NYPD pays out on a yearly basis. The amounts are more than double the entire amount of money a city generates from all tax sources in a single year / city budget.

It all revolves around public relations and nothing more.

a reply to: vonclod

For one, the officers responding to Faulkenberry's home did so under the information from the man's own son that he was drunk and carrying around--they had to approach with extreme caution and, most likely, extreme prejudice (that he was armed, drunk, and possibly dangerous...not that other type of prejudice). So, from the start, the officers who responded to Faulkenberry were already on edge based on their best information (again, from the man's own son).

With that in mind, I hope that you recall that I condemned the officers' behavior--my only beef was with the settlement amount, and in my argument about that, I have since learned that there was even an additional $350,000 on top of the $1.3-million that he was awarded and was cited in your biased website. So, that's more than $1,650,000 awarded to Faulkenberry.

But here is where my major difference lies--the ex-officer Payne has AMPLE time realize that what he was demanding was illegal. He had a nurse and a senior hospital administrator both telling him that they could not release a man's blood without a warrant due to fact that he was unconscious and could not consent and was not a suspect in a crime. Apparently, this went on for more than an hour, and Payne even had his superior on the phone other officers around him for this duration. Therfore, Payne and the SLCPD had more than enough time and resources to correctly assess the situation and respond legally and appropriately.

Instead, ex-officer Payne decided that the best course of action was to try and confiscate a nurse's private property, and then forcibly remove her from her workplace, in front of her peers, patients, and civilians, and put her into the back seat of a police cruiser and illegally detain her.

See, those are called mitigating circumstances--things that add up to making this situation bad because the police, having all of that time and those resources to research the state law, have no excuse in how the situation ended up, and it was all because of a nurse following the law and doing her job to protect her patient's fourth-amendment rights.

All of the information was there for everyone involved from the start, and yet they still used unnecessary force and disregarded that nurse's rights in making their intentionally piss-poor decisions.

As far as the detainment of Mr. Faulkenberry, the police department and the court system, to my knowledge was not immediately in control of the footage that eventually led to the truth about the LEOs' behavior. Without that knowledge, the court can only act under the rules set in place, meaning that they keep the individual detained until evidence presents itself to the contrary of the arresting officers' claims.

When that evidence was made known, he was released.

Like I've already noted, the officers were in the wrong, but the court and corrections system were not in between the arrest and the vindicating video. But the fact that he was detained on baseless charges is a massive problem, but not to the tune of $1.65+ Million dollars, IMO. I hate that it happened to either of these individuals, but for you to pretend that either of these incidents, when all mitigating circumstances are taken into account, are the same thing is ridiculous.

Plus, as Xcathdra notes, different states have different laws concerning how settlements occur and what monetary amounts are considered appropriate. I don't know the details in either case, but that's another variable to consider.

But to be honest, all I said is that I don't think that $500,000 is ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it's on the higher side. To be fair, I would have thought something in the $100,000, or even a bit lower, would have sufficed as well.

The good thing in both scenarios, though, is that both victims of this maltreatment from police are walking free and able to talk about it--I knew that the nurse would get off, but I bet that if Faulkenberry didn't have that video, we'd be discussing a different outcome for him, sadly enough.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

Slap is a well read, knowledgeable guy...

Dammit, don't make a bald man blush...there's nothing pretty about that.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: vonclod

Payouts, imo, are more based on public relations and less on taking a stand and saying enough, we did nothing wrong and wont pay out. Given the current climate police have a rough time in this area since no real distinction is drawn between a moron cop who makes the news and the other cops who do their jobs with no issues. We are all lumped into one category and its easier for cities to thrown the police under the bus in hopes it appears like they are representing their constituents.

Isn't that the sad truth, though?

8 time out of 10 they are hurting their constituents by constantly paying out. If you get bored look into the amounts the NYPD pays out on a yearly basis. The amounts are more than double the entire amount of money a city generates from all tax sources in a single year / city budget.

The City of Los Angeles isn't much better, and I think that I posted a link in the other thread about it--they actually have to take out loans in order to afford all of the payouts from lawsuits. It's a sad reality...

a reply to: Xcathdra

thank you for your input as i figured you would know how the review process works far better then most members sorry i been awol past few days have been absoloutly nuts for me so gonna try to get to more replies now that i have a few moments to catch my breath

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Xcathdra

thank you for your input as i figured you would know how the review process works far better then most members sorry i been awol past few days have been absoloutly nuts for me so gonna try to get to more replies now that i have a few moments to catch my breath

No problem ad no worries... Thanks for asking.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I have read a lot of your comments on this thread and I find it deeply disturbing that you are now effectively going back on your previous apology on another thread when you said that you were wrong in the original thread.. I profoundly disagree with your conviction that the nurse needed to be arrested. I believe that you have stated that you are currently in law enforcement yourself? If so then you are one of the reasons why I am becoming deeply reluctant to travel to the USA. I think that the standard of training and competence of your LEOs is somewhat lacking and I don't want to make a mistake that gets me into trouble.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

It is problematic when a person is deeply concerned about a topic they are not familiar with and are equally not familiar with all the laws at both levels of government that apply to law enforcement and civilians. I view the situation from a legal aspect and not an emotional one.

An officer has no right telling medical staff how to care for a patients medical needs any more than medical staff telling law enforcement what to do when it comes to criminal law.

In this instance the nurses objections were not based on a medical issue which is why I think her actions violated the law. Overall their was a monumental break in communications from all sides and each side was only willing to listen to their respective side.

I dont expect people who are not in law enforcement to understand that viewpoint.

I maintained from the start in the other threads that the officer should have handled it completely different than what he did. Contrary to what people think the investigations are not over with. The only one discussed recently was the IA investigation which is in house and only deals with potential policy violations. In this case the detective was fired but he has appealed that decision since the Mayor / CPRB violated their own policies about releasing disciplinary actions before the process was even completed. They did this based on politics only which is a real problem.

The criminal investigation is ongoing by the Sheriff's office and the 42 usc 1983 investigation is ongoing by the FBI.

The determination of whether an arrest is lawful or not is up to a court / judge / jury and not the person being arrested. Resisting an arrest is a separate charge and can stand alone, even if the initial arrest is deemed unlawful.

The concern I have is medical staff getting the wrong impression that they can just ignore law enforcement if they dont und4rstand or dont like the action being taken. That mindset is dangerous and can lead to massive problems - like in this case.

All states have laws that govern licensed professionals and in those laws a person cannot act beyond their level of training or expertise.A police officer is prohibited from giving legal advice to a person they are dealing with and must refer them to their lawyer. Just as law enforcement cant act as an attorney a nurse cannot act as law enforcement and a lawyer cant act as a medical professional.

With that said thousands of officers do there jobs everyday correctly and in full compliance of their policies and all the laws that govern them, whether its state local or federal. Those incidents where everything goes right doesn't make the news because of ratings and agendas by the media.

On the off chance your interested -
Myth #2 and #7 is relevant

a reply to: Xcathdra

I see. You seem to be defending law enforcement in general whilst ignoring the specific circumstances in this case. The officer was wrong, his superior was wrong and the nurse was correct. Moreover the nurse was citing a policy that had been agreed upon with local law enforcement.
The officer had no authority whatsoever to draw the blood of Gray. Gray was not under arrest, ergo there was no criminal investigation into him. He was not the cause of the crash that eventually killed him.
Payne claimed that he had had 'implied consent'. This was wrong. State law removed 'implied consent' in 2007 and the USSC ruled in 2016 that the Constitution does permit officers to obtain breath tests without a warrant in drunken-driving cases, but not blood draws. Gray was unconscious and had not therefore given permission. Payne did not have a legal leg to stand on. He knew it, his boss knew it and the fact that Wubbels was released without charge (and the talk by Payne of Wubbels 'resisting arrest' was insulting to say the least - the man deserved to be fired for abusing his authority) proves it.
If this incident has proved anything, it is that the police department in this city is now trying desperately to repair the damage inflicted by Payne and Tracy on its relationship with the medical authorities. The fact that Payne can be heard in the other footage of promising to dump 'transients' at the hospital to punish them shows that this idiot should never have been employed by them in the first place.
Police officers are not immune to the law, common sense and above all overview of their actions. Those who claim to be a law unto themselves need to be reined in before people get hurt.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I am not defending the detectives actions and as I stated numerous times in multiple threads he did not handle the situation correctly. The part of my argument that is confusing people who are not familiar with law enforcement and the laws / court cases that define it.

As for the nurse she was correct reference Hospital policy. With that being said she actually lied to the detective when she incorrectly claimed SLCPD had agreed to the hospital policy. When this incident occurred the SLCPD policy was in fact not the same as the Hospitals (even the university / hospital police departments policy was not the same as the Hospital side). We know this because the incident triggered a review of the police policy and that review occurred over a 3 week time frame to develop a policy that worked for the hospital and the police.

As far as I have seen no policy agreement was made and the Hospital has restricted their staff from dealing with law enforcement unless its a manager / supervisor at the hospital.

The nurses objections were not based on medically protecting the patient, which is another area people dont seem to understand.

The latest supreme court ruling did NOT apply to Utah. That ruling ONLY applied to states whose implied consent laws carried a criminal charge for refusing breath / blood tests. All states who only have a civil ramification fall under the ruling in Mo vs McNeely.

As for justification that is left to the officer and not medical staff. Had the nurse made a medical argument then you would be somewhat correct.

I know police arent immune from the law however neither is medical staff. The title RN / MD / DO / NP does not make them immune from thos4e same laws and they can in fact be arrested for violating the laws OR for obstructing an inv4estigation.

Both scotus rulings left warrant less exceptions in place (exigent circumstances) and both rulings make it clear that it is the sole responsibility of the officer to make that determination. The nurse also could have told the detective a blood draw was already done as a course of medical treatment. Not only did the nurse fail to disclose that info, when she finally did it was already to the point where she was in custody.

As I said resisting an arrest, which is clear in the video when she refused to comply with verbal commands and then attempted to physically resist the detective's actions. The legality of an arrest is not something people get argue with the officer over. It is up to the PA and the courts to determine the reasonableness of the officers actions. This is why resisting is a stand alone charge. An arrest can be invalidated while at the same time the person can still be charged with resisting. The nurses actions are textbook resisting.

As for insulting I guess to each their own. My position / views on this come from my background an practical experience. It might help if people detached the Utah incident when looking at my posts. You guys seem to get tunnel vision on the one incident instead of viewing it in a larger context.

I still believe the SLCPD has had issues with the hospital and medical staff in the past leading up to this mess. For some stupid ass reasons hospitals have this warped view that they are A - immune from an arrest and B - they think Hospital policies apply to everyone coming into the building.

A perfect example for a potential sh*t storm is the Hospitals policy. Under their policy a blood draw can only be done if its by consent or by warrant. Nowhere in that policy does it even address an exigent circumstance situation, creating a scenario where medical staff could again be taken into custody and charged.

This is why I maintain that medical staff should stick to the medical field and not try to play point-counter point on criminal statutes / court rulings. As I said states have laws / court rulings that come into effect based on a persons position and level of training.

A police officer has no business telling medical staff how to medically treat a patient any more than hospital staff does telling law enforcement how the law works.

As for transients the university hospital is a level 1 trauma facility so they cant turn anyone away, regardless if they have means to pay for it or not. As for trying to repair relations - they have had issues with each other for some time prior to this incident. Repairing relations in this sense is a 2 way street. In the end the hospital can enact any policy they want however it wont apply to law enforcement. Last I checked the ability to act under color of law and the ability to make an arrest resides with law enforcement and not medical staff. In the end city ordinance / state law / federal rulings will trump a policy when a conflict between the 2 arises.

Finally the IA issues is NOT resolved as Det. Payne is challenging his termination citing the fact the CPRB and the Mayor violated their own policies by releasing the IA report before final determinations were made and completely adjudicated. Firing an officer for violating policy becomes problematic when the people responsible violate their own policies to make their case.

The FBI is still investigation the 42 USC 1983 violation and the Metro agency is doing the criminal investigation. The PA has stated that the review on charges would look at everyone involved and is not only limited to the detective. I guarantee medical staff actions are going to be reviewed as much as the detectives actions are. as for law enforcement needing to be reigned in you also need to apply that same standard to the Hospital and its staff. They (medical) truly believe they are immune from arrest and that their policies are on the same level as law.

They arent immune and policies dont trump law.

Everything an officer does requires justification by the officer that supports the action. Those actions are reviewed by the PA and the court (judge or jury) and not medical staff.

I dot expect you to understand my position or my train of thought in this area so if something I posted sounds off to you please ask.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your post genuinely stunned me, as your version of 'resisting arrest' seems to set the bar so ludicrously low that almost anything could apply to it. She was convinced that she was correct, she had support from her supervisor, the law was on her side (I refuse to change my mind on this, especially as the local police force apologised to her) she merely backed away. This makes me concerned because I am deaf in one ear and cannot hear the same way as others. If I heard something from a police officer that I didn't understand I'd probably react with great puzzlement. Are you saying that that's resisting arrest, being slow to respond?
You seem to automatically revert to the same position: that the police are automatically right and that the hospital was by default wrong. Furthermore, I am not talking about the general position, I am talking about this specific incident in which everyone seems to agree should never have happened and which has damaged the relationship between law enforcement and medical personnel in the area, if not the State.
I'll add something else. As you are a LEO you are not reassuring me about the wisdom of approaching you in any kind of official capacity.