Nurse arrested for following hospital policy

[Slashsnake]

A nurse in Utah was arrested because she would not take blood from an unconscious patient. Apparently the hospital policy only allows drawing of blood from unconscious patients if they have given consent, if the police have a warrant, or if the patient is under arrest. The body cam video of the incident seems to show the officer involved arresting the woman out of anger and frustration, rather than because she had violated any law.

The nurse was not charged. The officer was taken off of blood draw duty. Based just on the video (and obviously, there may be important information we don't get from this video) I would think the officer needs some sort of discipline. It appears to me to be an abuse of authority.

Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from unconscious patient

A warrant is used for searches and seizures. I think the term you are looking for is court order.

I had a school resource police officer tell me to pick up a carton of milk off the floor, a carton that did not end up on the floor because of me. I simply flipped her off and went about my day. It's amazing that the police think we somehow work for them when it's the other way around. I don't answer to their back and call unless they have a lawful reason for me to do something.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

One of the other things I didn't realize is the officer was ordered by his Lieutenant to arrest The nurse if she would not allow him to draw blood from the patient. I hope the Lieutenant is also in deep kimchi..........

What's troubling is it appears nobody was in real trouble until this video was publicly released more than a month later.

Well it should be obvious why....... The video wasn't released prior to that time, was it........ DUH!

When was it released? If we need to nitpick, it seemed to have went viral circa Sept 1/2.

#Ringel05AssWipe

The video has caused outrage since it was released Thursday.

2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Did not know that Wubbels was an Alpine skier at the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympics. Wow, did this cop pick the wrong woman to abuse.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

“I either go away with blood in vials or body in tow,” Payne threatened, just before the arrest.

 

[Anathema]

You're a fascist, and BTW there are judges on call 24-7 and a warrant can be signed on a computer and returned to the office in charge in minutes.

No, I'm an Authoritarian. There is a difference.

In my mind no warrant should be necessary. Then again, I also believe thst failure to agree to a breathalyzer or fiekd sobriety test should be treated as an admission of guilt to a DUI/DWI.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You're a fascist, and BTW there are judges on call 24-7 and a warrant can be signed on a computer and returned to the office in charge in minutes.

No, I'm an Authoritarian. There is a difference.

In my mind no warrant should be necessary. Then again, I also believe thst failure to agree to a breathalyzer or fiekd sobriety test should be treated as an admission of guilt to a DUI/DWI.

 

[BulletProof]

In my mind no warrant should be necessary. Then again, I also believe thst failure to agree to a breathalyzer or fiekd sobriety test should be treated as an admission of guilt to a DUI/DWI.

The authorities will follow the mob, at the very least because this is a gray area. Anyway, an exception to the warrant requirement is if the evidence is being destroyed, including by metabolism, so no warrant would be required, if a drug test was justified.

It's not the nurse's right to use "policy" to disobey a police order. It's the cop's job to arrest people who refuse his instructions. It's a judge's job to decide of the evidence was illegally gained, in which case it can't be used to convict the person the evidence was taken from, and the office who illegally collected the evidence may be punished.

The mob defending the nurse are acting like savages in insisting that it's the right of the people to disobey police if they disagree with the police. That's also how people do get arrested and even killed by police.

 

[OldLady]

BulletProof

I take it that you are or were a cop. Only power trippin' cops defend this lawless shit.

I think he's probably not from this country. South Africa, maybe?

 

[OldLady]

In my mind no warrant should be necessary. Then again, I also believe thst failure to agree to a breathalyzer or fiekd sobriety test should be treated as an admission of guilt to a DUI/DWI.

The authorities will follow the mob, at the very least because this is a gray area. Anyway, an exception to the warrant requirement is if the evidence is being destroyed, including by metabolism, so no warrant would be required, if a drug test was justified.

It's not the nurse's right to use "policy" to disobey a police order. It's the cop's job to arrest people who refuse his instructions. It's a judge's job to decide of the evidence was illegally gained, in which case it can't be used to convict the person the evidence was taken from, and the office who illegally collected the evidence may be punished.

The mob defending the nurse are acting like savages in insisting that it's the right of the people to disobey police if they disagree with the police. That's also how people do get arrested and even killed by police.

If the cop's supervisor advised him that he should call 'exigent circumstances,' I can understand the cop believing it was a valid order. Cops do understandably disagree about what constitutes exigent circumstances at times.
If the supervisor indeed told the cop that, it's the supervisor who should be fired, or at least educated about what exigent circumstance means.

exigent circumstance means the following: An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.
Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

A nurse in Utah was arrested because she would not take blood from an unconscious patient. Apparently the hospital policy only allows drawing of blood from unconscious patients if they have given consent, if the police have a warrant, or if the patient is under arrest. The body cam video of the incident seems to show the officer involved arresting the woman out of anger and frustration, rather than because she had violated any law.

The nurse was not charged. The officer was taken off of blood draw duty. Based just on the video (and obviously, there may be important information we don't get from this video) I would think the officer needs some sort of discipline. It appears to me to be an abuse of authority.

Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from unconscious patient

All hospitals have armed security.

The nurse should have called the security team instead of argue with the LEO's herself.

The LEO needed a search warrant from a judge, which would have been easy to get.

This is a case of an overly enthusiastic nurse and an overly enthusiastic LEO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A nurse in Utah was arrested because she would not take blood from an unconscious patient. Apparently the hospital policy only allows drawing of blood from unconscious patients if they have given consent, if the police have a warrant, or if the patient is under arrest. The body cam video of the incident seems to show the officer involved arresting the woman out of anger and frustration, rather than because she had violated any law.

The nurse was not charged. The officer was taken off of blood draw duty. Based just on the video (and obviously, there may be important information we don't get from this video) I would think the officer needs some sort of discipline. It appears to me to be an abuse of authority.

Nurse arrested for refusing to draw blood from unconscious patient

The patient’s 4th Amendment rights were clearly violated:

'In [Missouri v.]McNeely, a majority of the Court rejected the idea of a “per se” exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for blood tests in drunk-driving cases. That is, the Court held that police may not automatically order a blood test on someone whom they have lawfully arrested for DWI (driving while intoxicated) but must instead seek a warrant, absent a reason to skip the warrant—a reason that goes beyond the simple fact that blood-alcohol-concentration diminishes with the passage of time.’

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Blood Tests for Drunk Driving Suspects Require a Search Warrant: A Wise Decision?

 

[BulletProof]

The patient’s 4th Amendment rights were clearly violated:

'In [Missouri v.]McNeely, a majority of the Court rejected the idea of a “per se” exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for blood tests in drunk-driving cases. That is, the Court held that police may not automatically order a blood test on someone whom they have lawfully arrested for DWI (driving while intoxicated) but must instead seek a warrant, absent a reason to skip the warrant—a reason that goes beyond the simple fact that blood-alcohol-concentration diminishes with the passage of time.’

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Blood Tests for Drunk Driving Suspects Require a Search Warrant: A Wise Decision?

The Court decision allows a forced breathalyzer, but not a blood draw. In the case, it's assumed that a breathalyzer is an option. The Court reasoned that drawing blood is more intrusion than is necessary to get a BAC. That Court prohibition on a blood draw doesn't apply here because a breathalyzer isn't an option in this case.

 

[SavannahMann]

In my mind no warrant should be necessary. Then again, I also believe thst failure to agree to a breathalyzer or fiekd sobriety test should be treated as an admission of guilt to a DUI/DWI.

The authorities will follow the mob, at the very least because this is a gray area. Anyway, an exception to the warrant requirement is if the evidence is being destroyed, including by metabolism, so no warrant would be required, if a drug test was justified.

It's not the nurse's right to use "policy" to disobey a police order. It's the cop's job to arrest people who refuse his instructions. It's a judge's job to decide of the evidence was illegally gained, in which case it can't be used to convict the person the evidence was taken from, and the office who illegally collected the evidence may be punished.

The mob defending the nurse are acting like savages in insisting that it's the right of the people to disobey police if they disagree with the police. That's also how people do get arrested and even killed by police.

If the cop's supervisor advised him that he should call 'exigent circumstances,' I can understand the cop believing it was a valid order. Cops do understandably disagree about what constitutes exigent circumstances at times.
If the supervisor indeed told the cop that, it's the supervisor who should be fired, or at least educated about what exigent circumstance means.

exigent circumstance means the following: An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.
Wikipedia

You used the wrong link.

Missouri v. McNeely - Wikipedia

In that decision, and it was a 2013 Supreme Court Decision, so you would think that the cops had heard about it by now, the Court ruled at every single level that forced blood draw was an unconstitutional search without a warrant.

Now, even if you argue that the police were not trained to be in compliance with the law, then you have to wonder if the police bother reading or watching the news.

The Salt Lake Paper had an article on the decision when it was announced by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court rejects no-warrant DUI blood tests

Well perhaps they don't read the local paper for the city they are in. Perhaps they get their news from Police oriented websites an magazines. What cops need to know about blood alcohol testing and the Fourth Amendment

Now, Salt Lake City is a major city. A small town may have a two person police department and getting in touch with a Judge may be problematic. But Salt Lake City has Judges who are assigned as on call, or given the duty as it were. These Judges are sitting around watching TV and waiting for the call to issue a warrant. Or they are expecting a telephone call for just that purpose. Yet, the police still want the freedom to do whatever the hell they want, and if it is wrong, too bad.

So the police were aware, or could reasonably be expected to be aware of the standards they were supposed to follow. I find it interesting whenever one of these cases where the cops violated the constitution and an existing Supreme Court Decision claiming that they were ignorant of the standards for their job, and that is considered a perfectly acceptable excuse. Yet, when a man stands before the judge and says hey, I did not know there was a law prohibiting it, then ignorance is no excuse. Turn right on a red light in New York City and you are getting a ticket. Ignorance is no excuse. You are just supposed to know what the law is you civilian douche. But a cop doesn't have to know what the laws are, even though he is charged with enforcing those laws.

The cop was wrong. The cop knew it was wrong. The supervisor was wrong, and knew it would be wrong and neither of them cared.

 

[SavannahMann]

The patient’s 4th Amendment rights were clearly violated:

'In [Missouri v.]McNeely, a majority of the Court rejected the idea of a “per se” exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for blood tests in drunk-driving cases. That is, the Court held that police may not automatically order a blood test on someone whom they have lawfully arrested for DWI (driving while intoxicated) but must instead seek a warrant, absent a reason to skip the warrant—a reason that goes beyond the simple fact that blood-alcohol-concentration diminishes with the passage of time.’

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Blood Tests for Drunk Driving Suspects Require a Search Warrant: A Wise Decision?

The Court decision allows a forced breathalyzer, but not a blood draw. In the case, it's assumed that a breathalyzer is an option. The Court reasoned that drawing blood is more intrusion than is necessary to get a BAC. That Court prohibition on a blood draw doesn't apply here because a breathalyzer isn't an option in this case.

Then the cops get a warrant. Salt Lake City has a lot of Judges, and one is on call all the time for warrant requests. One can be sent electronically, it's the 21st Century in Salt Lake City too. An electronic warrant was one of the options to allow the nurse to proceed. But Barney Fife was incensed that someone dare flaunt his authoritah.



Respect My Authoritah!

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're a fascist, and BTW there are judges on call 24-7 and a warrant can be signed on a computer and returned to the office in charge in minutes.

No, I'm an Authoritarian. There is a difference.

In my mind no warrant should be necessary. Then again, I also believe thst failure to agree to a breathalyzer or fiekd sobriety test should be treated as an admission of guilt to a DUI/DWI.

In CA failure to provide a sample is punished by the loss of the Driver's License. When a person obtains and or renews their license they give consent to be tested for DUI, and that includes blood draws since drugs are not measurable by breathalyzers.

Officers/deputies who have completed the 36-hour 11550 H&S POST Training:

Drug Influence - 11550 H&S. Course Description - This 36-hour course is specifically designed for all law enforcement officers. It will familiarize the officer with the major drugs of abuse, user identification, and enforcement of applicable laws pertaining to the arrest and conviction of narcotic abusers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're a fascist, and BTW there are judges on call 24-7 and a warrant can be signed on a computer and returned to the office in charge in minutes.

No, I'm an Authoritarian. There is a difference.

In my mind no warrant should be necessary. Then again, I also believe thst failure to agree to a breathalyzer or fiekd sobriety test should be treated as an admission of guilt to a DUI/DWI.

In CA failure to provide consent is punished by the loss of the Driver's License.

What is the difference between an Authoritarian (i.e. a bully) and a fascist? Degree of harm to those who don't follow the leader?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Too bad nobody gave the cop a hot shot...say, a full syringe of insulin.

Any cops brought to that ER in the future should simply be ignored, just left to bleed out.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Answer this, Anathema, do you think cops should be able to demand blood samples from anyone at any time?

Yes. Just as I believe they should be able to demand positive I'D and breathalyzer tests at any time.

Then you are clueless about our society, our freedoms, and the principles on which our nation was built.

Naah, he is just a hypocritical child.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And used it on you. Hell using your thinking he would have gotten way with murder........

I don't give officers a reason to beed to draw their weapons. Unlike this ****.

If they knew you that would probably be a good enough reason..........

He is a poster child for straitjackets, padded cells, and lobotomization.

 

[Ringel05]

I guess constitutional prohibitions on authority mean nothing when it comes to expediency eh.............

ANYTHING that stands in the way of Justice is a problem to be overcome, in whatever way is necessary.

Well then you're in the wrong country tovaritch.

He bleats all the bullshit, but will never actually leave. North Korea might fit his beliefs better.

Don't know, I was getting the impression that he was trying to simply jerk people's chains............. Hence my approach............