And I think it is the CDL holder’s employer that gets the test done (with consent of the driver, penalties if driver refuses and “exceptions/work arounds” if injured in a crash...local SLC PD wouldn’t be doing DOT’s work I don’t think). My theory...police trying to cover their behinds on a pursuit gone bad. Also, nobody mentions much that the detective was on the “blood draw team” (phlebotomist) for the PD...so he wasn’t asking the nurse to do the draw...was going to do it himself and got blocked. Also, it IS legal to do a draw on an unconscious person in many states w/o a warrant if the police invoke “probable cause and exigent circumstances”. I think the cop in question said in his report that that is what he was doing...just handled the interaction with the nurse very badly.
http://www.utahduilegal.com/warrantless-blood-draws/
http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-warrantless-blood-draw-unconscious-driver-not-violate-fourth-amendment/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2017-03-01/court-police-can-take-blood-from-unconscious-drivers
“probable cause and exigent circumstances”.
Love to see what crime they had probable cause which they were investigating. They may have had suspicion he was drunk or had been drinking but that is not at the level of probable cause.
Someone was right on the money, they were trying to cover their backsides for a dumbass chase.
Except...the hospital and LE had a written agreement that stated one of three conditions had to be met: patient consent, patient under arrest, warrant. Hospital policy was based on the agreement. The nurse had to follow it. That agreement was what she was showing him.
The problem here is that the truck driver is not and was not a suspect of any kind. So what was the articulable probable cause for a non-suspect, how does implied consent apply to a non-suspect. The cops were blowing smoke because all the verbiage they were applying doesn’t apply to a non-suspect.
And it doesn’t matter if the cop was a phlebotomist because not even licensed doctors can do procedures in a hospital that doesn’t give them permission. And burn units are highly restrictive access because of the very high infection rates and depending on where the burns are, a blood draw may not even have been physically possible and a central line has to be done and phlebotomists aren’t certified for central lines.
Probable Cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the peace officer’s knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been-or is being-committed.[1] Probable cause is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, and deals with probabilities and certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior formulated by peace officers.[2] However, where a search intrudes beyond the human body’s surface, the interests of “dignity and privacy” require “a clear indication” that the desired evidence will be found.[3]
An exigent circumstance exists where there is an urgency to acquire evidence that falls outside the ordinary course of law enforcement. Generally exigent circumstances exist if: (1) there is a good chance that evidence will be destroyed or concealed if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant; (2) It is likely that the suspect will flee if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant; or (3) there is a real danger to the people if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant. The rationale for permitting warrantless searches under such circumstances is that extreme situations dictate that peace officers act quickly, when there is no time to secure a warrant.