Posted on 09/01/2017 7:34:22 AM PDT by BobNative
A nurse says she was assaulted and illegally arrested by a Salt Lake City police detective for following a hospital policy that does not allow blood draws from unconscious patients.
Footage from University Hospital and officer body cameras shows Detective Jeff Payne and nurse Alex Wubbels in a standoff over whether the policeman should be allowed to get a blood sample from a patient who had been injured in a July 26 collision in northern Utah that left another driver dead.
Wubbels says blood cannot be taken from an unconscious patient unless the patient is under arrest, unless there is a warrant allowing the draw or unless the patient consents. The detective acknowledges in the footage that none of those requirements is in place, but he insists that he has the authority to obtain the draw, according to the footage.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Not BS, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf
And Utah is not an implied consent state and hasn’t been for ten effing years. The officers were wrong on the law and the facts, so they pounded the table.
This is what people are up against when the force hires 100IQ
thugs.
“I know the term. You don’t know the law.”
Sure. The law is static and infallible. All lawyers know the law and therefor they all agree. All court decisions are unanimous. This is a slam dunk. No warrant, the cop is a thug. Sure. I get it. Thanks for steering me straight.
> I said he [the cop] invoked IMPLIED CONSENT. <
I will assume for now that you are correct about that. As I have said earlier, I am bothered that the cop did not take even a minute to explain this to the nurse.
All that aside, and given that you are correct, what is the nature of the implied consent law here? I ask that because implied consent laws come in two forms. Let’s use truck-driving as an example.
The first form is: If you drive a commercial truck, you consent to giving blood in an accident. (Period. End of story.)
The second form is: If you drive a commercial truck, you consent to giving blood in an accident. And if you don’t consent, this penalty applies (whatever).
It would be interesting to see the actual law.
Thanks, I’ve already read that (it was linked in the article) and I mentioned it in an earlier post. Only pertains to BAC. I also stated that even if the police mis-interpreted the law, it is not up to a nurse to decide.
Salt Lake city might as well open up the checkbook now. If the cop’s supervisor had not instructed, or at least did not tell him to leave, the cop to arrest her; the city could have suspended and then fired the cop and minimize the city’s liability.
However, if strong-arming tactics have been used at other hospitals the nurse’s lawyer is going to be getting a lot of calls from other nurses and hospital personnel.
Some states do blood draws on every arrest.
I suggest you look it up. Warrant on every case.
If you want to take this comatose reserve cops license away, have at it.
This is where you are. He was comatose and failed the “Implied Consent” law. He loses his license for a year and we all are better.
Now come back to earth and be honest. Barney is up to no good and got busted. Admit it.
You make a great nurse.
Who is more of a nutcase, the abusive cop or his defenders?
What kind of brainwashing people go through to be trained in justifying such obvious abuse without having lived in North Korea?
“I will assume for now that you are correct about that. As I have said earlier, I am bothered that the cop did not take even a minute to explain this to the nurse.
All that aside, and given that you are correct, what is the nature of the implied consent law here? I ask that because implied consent laws come in two forms. Let’s use truck-driving as an example.
The first form is: If you drive a commercial truck, you consent to giving blood in an accident. (Period. End of story.)
The second form is: If you drive a commercial truck, you consent to giving blood in an accident. And if you don’t consent, this penalty applies (whatever).
It would be interesting to see the actual law.”
Right or wrong, laws are interpreted by judges. The reasons the court found the implied consent to be an unreasonable search in the case cited by the nurse don’t seem to apply in this case. The patient is already in the hospital, the person taking the blood is trained, and the patient being a commercial truck driver shouldn’t have an expectation of privacy of what’s in his blood during a fatal accident. It could go either way depending on the attorneys and judges.
“You make a great nurse.”
Ad hominem
another fallacy
It was two. The idiot in question received orders over the phone or radio.
“If you want to take this comatose reserve cops license away, have at it.”
Another strawman
How are these “Strawmen”? Did you learn another term this week?
Your own diatribe explains your fallacy in the entire argument. I think you are trapped into thinking Barney could just go get some blood because he is a badge.
It does not work that way. You have lost this argument profoundly and you may continue with your strawman claim, with my permission only.
“How are these “Strawmen”? Did you learn another term this week?
Your own diatribe explains your fallacy in the entire argument. I think you are trapped into thinking Barney could just go get some blood because he is a badge.
It does not work that way. You have lost this argument profoundly and you may continue with your strawman claim, with my permission only.”
Oh, I get it now. You’re drunk. Apology accepted.
What is that?
Actually I’m psychic.
Are Lousiana police going to start dragging priests out of their rectories ?
I feel like the only sober guy at the party. It’s been fun, but it’s getting a little old. Take care :)
It was. Go Pats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.