Nurse arrested for following hospital policy

[BulletProof]

The established law is that fleeting evidence, including BAC, can be collected without a search warrant. It's legally irrelevant whether a search warrant might have quickly been obtained, the law doesn't require the cops screw around betting on the search warrant to come quickly.

The nurse's policy argument is irrelevant. The nurse also isn't an expert on the law and relevant court cases. It's not the right of anyone to resist police instructions because they disagree with the police. She should have collected the evidence and then let interested parties sort out the rightness-or-wrongness later.

In the end, the hospital did provide police with the BAC.

 

[Montrovant]

The established law is that fleeting evidence, including BAC, can be collected without a search warrant. It's legally irrelevant whether a search warrant might have quickly been obtained, the law doesn't require the cops screw around betting on the search warrant to come quickly.

The nurse's policy argument is irrelevant. The nurse also isn't an expert on the law and relevant court cases. It's not the right of anyone to resist police instructions because they disagree with the police. She should have collected the evidence and then let interested parties sort out the rightness-or-wrongness later.

In the end, the hospital did provide police with the BAC.

From what I can tell, based on my reading of Missouri v McNeely, established law is that drawing blood to show BAC requires exigent circumstances. Without such circumstances, the court ruled that drawing blood without consent requires a warrant.

If the nurse had just drawn the blood, she might have been assisting in violating the fourth amendment rights of the patient. While I understand the idea behind following police instruction at the moment and then arguing about it later, at what point do you draw a line? Obviously there are things that a person will not do just because a police officer tells them to: hurt another person, commit an obviously illegal act such as robbery or destruction of property, etc. If the nurse thought that following the officer's order would be committing a crime, should she have done it anyway?

Based on the reactions from the police department, it would seem that the nurse acted in what they consider a reasonable manner. She has not been charged with any crime, the training for officers doing blood draws has been changed, and the officers involved are being investigated. At this point, it seems that the SLC PD might argue that the nurse did have a right to resist the police instructions.

 

[SavannahMann]

The established law is that fleeting evidence, including BAC, can be collected without a search warrant. It's legally irrelevant whether a search warrant might have quickly been obtained, the law doesn't require the cops screw around betting on the search warrant to come quickly.

The nurse's policy argument is irrelevant. The nurse also isn't an expert on the law and relevant court cases. It's not the right of anyone to resist police instructions because they disagree with the police. She should have collected the evidence and then let interested parties sort out the rightness-or-wrongness later.

In the end, the hospital did provide police with the BAC.

The nurse would have been unemployed and unemployable as a nurse. Nurses have a license issued by the state. The L in LPN stands for licensed. If the nurse had drawn the blood in an unauthorized manner she could have lost her license. It is an unauthorized medical procedure. The state board could have revoked her license. The Hospital certainly would have fired her. I damn sure would have if she failed to follow the procedures that our lawyers have determined are in compliance with all the laws. If she had drawn it the Hospital could have been sued.

The cop was wrong. We know that because the cops are the ones being investigated by the District Attorney. Officer Who Arrested Utah Nurse In Viral Video Is Now Under Criminal Investigation

I was only following orders is an excuse that has never worked. It didn't work in the Nuremberg trials. It didn't work for Abu Ghraib. We are required. We are morally and legally required to refuse to follow illegal orders. He had a badge is no defense. He had authority is no defense. That standard is not new. It goes back to Saint Augustine. There is a lot of legal precedent for it.

If a police officer orders you to stab someone, you can not claim you were following his instructions later as you know it is illegal to stab someone.

 

[BulletProof]

From what I can tell, based on my reading of Missouri v McNeely, established law is that drawing blood to show BAC requires exigent circumstances. Without such circumstances, the court ruled that drawing blood without consent requires a warrant.

MvM assumes that a breathalyzer is an option, and therefor doesn't apply. The nurse also didn't cite MvM, but cited policy, which is irrelevant.

Drawing the blood of a man in a coma is not hurting anyone nor is it "obviously" illegal. Drawing blood is not criminal, as crime requires intent to harm or to break the law.

Based on the reactions from the police department, it would seem that the nurse acted in what they consider a reasonable manner.

I don't take the reaction of the police department as evidence they believe the nurse acted reasonably. I believe the police are acting according to public and political pressure, not according to their own beliefs. Also, even if there were no public or political pressure, and even if the police don't think she acted reasonably, the nurse is unlikely to have been charged.

Here are two problems with the mob justice in this issue:

1) It encourages people to be uncooperative with police, and most of the time these people will be undeniably in the wrong. We'll have more arrests, and even more police shootings.

2) It discourages good people from being cops, increasing the percent of incompetent and crooked cops. This kind of thing causes competent people to choose careers that don't involve the risk of embarrassing videos being made public nor involve the risk of a career being ended because of one easy error in judgement or error in understanding of the law.

 

[SavannahMann]

From what I can tell, based on my reading of Missouri v McNeely, established law is that drawing blood to show BAC requires exigent circumstances. Without such circumstances, the court ruled that drawing blood without consent requires a warrant.

MvM assumes that a breathalyzer is an option, and therefor doesn't apply. The nurse also didn't cite MvM, but cited policy, which is irrelevant.

Drawing the blood of a man in a coma is not hurting anyone nor is it "obviously" illegal. Drawing blood is not criminal, as crime requires intent to harm or to break the law.

Based on the reactions from the police department, it would seem that the nurse acted in what they consider a reasonable manner.

I don't take the reaction of the police department as evidence they believe the nurse acted reasonably. I believe the police are acting according to public and political pressure, not according to their own beliefs. Also, even if there were no public or political pressure, and even if the police don't think she acted reasonably, the nurse is unlikely to have been charged.

Here are two problems with the mob justice in this issue:

1) It encourages people to be uncooperative with police, and most of the time these people will be undeniably in the wrong. We'll have more arrests, and even more police shootings.

2) It discourages good people from being cops, increasing the percent of incompetent and crooked cops. This kind of thing causes competent people to choose careers that don't involve the risk of embarrassing videos being made public nor involve the risk of a career being ended because of one easy error in judgement or error in understanding of the law.

Ignorance is no excuse. This phrase is repeated every day in court when someone complains they had no idea that what they were doing was illegal. Turning right on a red light as one example. Yet for the cops, ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse? The ones charged with enforcing the law can be ignorant but the citizens trying to obey can not?

 

[BulletProof]

Ignorance is no excuse. This phrase is repeated every day in court when someone complains they had no idea that what they were doing was illegal. Turning right on a red light as one example. Yet for the cops, ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse? The ones charged with enforcing the law can be ignorant but the citizens trying to obey can not?

You watch too much TV. Crimes require intent. You use the example of turning right at a red light. That's not a crime, even if you know it's against the law. It's a civil violation.

Yes, for a cop, ignorance is a valid excuse. If a cop is ignorant, it's a failure of the police dept., in either in training or hiring.

Stupid people like you make third-world countries full of corrupt cops, because you want to harshly punish good people for innocent mistakes. And, so good people find other occupations, leaving only the corrupt to fill the police jobs.

 

[WinterBorn]

From what I can tell, based on my reading of Missouri v McNeely, established law is that drawing blood to show BAC requires exigent circumstances. Without such circumstances, the court ruled that drawing blood without consent requires a warrant.

MvM assumes that a breathalyzer is an option, and therefor doesn't apply. The nurse also didn't cite MvM, but cited policy, which is irrelevant.

Drawing the blood of a man in a coma is not hurting anyone nor is it "obviously" illegal. Drawing blood is not criminal, as crime requires intent to harm or to break the law.

Based on the reactions from the police department, it would seem that the nurse acted in what they consider a reasonable manner.

I don't take the reaction of the police department as evidence they believe the nurse acted reasonably. I believe the police are acting according to public and political pressure, not according to their own beliefs. Also, even if there were no public or political pressure, and even if the police don't think she acted reasonably, the nurse is unlikely to have been charged.

Here are two problems with the mob justice in this issue:

1) It encourages people to be uncooperative with police, and most of the time these people will be undeniably in the wrong. We'll have more arrests, and even more police shootings.

2) It discourages good people from being cops, increasing the percent of incompetent and crooked cops. This kind of thing causes competent people to choose careers that don't involve the risk of embarrassing videos being made public nor involve the risk of a career being ended because of one easy error in judgement or error in understanding of the law.

"Drawing the blood of a man in a coma is not hurting anyone nor is it "obviously" illegal. Drawing blood is not criminal, as crime requires intent to harm or to break the law."

Yes, it is certainly illegal to draw blood from someone without consent, a warrant, or that person being under arrest. The patient did not consent. There was no warrant (lack of reasonable suspicion), and the patient was not under arrest.

The nurse followed hospital protocol and also protected the patient's constitutional rights.

Any medical procedure requires consent or must fit the strict requirements of assumed consent to save their life.

 

[BulletProof]

Yes, it is certainly illegal to draw blood from someone without consent, a warrant, or that person being under arrest. The patient did not consent. There was no warrant (lack of reasonable suspicion), and the patient was not under arrest.

The nurse followed hospital protocol and also protected the patient's constitutional rights.

Any medical procedure requires consent or must fit the strict requirements of assumed consent to save their life.

Will sh1tty then, the hospital drew blood and performed a BAC test, without a warrant. Why don't you go down there and protest that the coma man's constitutional rights were violated? Did you graduate from the same law school as this nurse?

 

[ricechickie]

Yes, it is certainly illegal to draw blood from someone without consent, a warrant, or that person being under arrest. The patient did not consent. There was no warrant (lack of reasonable suspicion), and the patient was not under arrest.

The nurse followed hospital protocol and also protected the patient's constitutional rights.

Any medical procedure requires consent or must fit the strict requirements of assumed consent to save their life.

Will sh1tty then, the hospital drew blood and performed a BAC test, without a warrant. Why don't you go down there and protest that the coma man's constitutional rights were violated? Did you graduate from the same law school as this nurse?

It takes a special kind of willful ignorance to compare what a medical professional does, because it's medically necessary, to what a cop wants to do to collect evidence without due process.

 

[WinterBorn]

Ignorance is no excuse. This phrase is repeated every day in court when someone complains they had no idea that what they were doing was illegal. Turning right on a red light as one example. Yet for the cops, ignorance is a perfectly valid excuse? The ones charged with enforcing the law can be ignorant but the citizens trying to obey can not?

You watch too much TV. Crimes require intent. You use the example of turning right at a red light. That's not a crime, even if you know it's against the law. It's a civil violation.

Yes, for a cop, ignorance is a valid excuse. If a cop is ignorant, it's a failure of the police dept., in either in training or hiring.

Stupid people like you make third-world countries full of corrupt cops, because you want to harshly punish good people for innocent mistakes. And, so good people find other occupations, leaving only the corrupt to fill the police jobs.

Crime requires intent? I

Yes, it is certainly illegal to draw blood from someone without consent, a warrant, or that person being under arrest. The patient did not consent. There was no warrant (lack of reasonable suspicion), and the patient was not under arrest.

The nurse followed hospital protocol and also protected the patient's constitutional rights.

Any medical procedure requires consent or must fit the strict requirements of assumed consent to save their life.

Will sh1tty then, the hospital drew blood and performed a BAC test, without a warrant. Why don't you go down there and protest that the coma man's constitutional rights were violated? Did you graduate from the same law school as this nurse?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is certainly illegal to draw blood from someone without consent, a warrant, or that person being under arrest. The patient did not consent. There was no warrant (lack of reasonable suspicion), and the patient was not under arrest.

The nurse followed hospital protocol and also protected the patient's constitutional rights.

Any medical procedure requires consent or must fit the strict requirements of assumed consent to save their life.

Will sh1tty then, the hospital drew blood and performed a BAC test, without a warrant. Why don't you go down there and protest that the coma man's constitutional rights were violated? Did you graduate from the same law school as this nurse?

There is assumed consent for life saving measures. Testing the BAC is relevant for medical treatment. But it is not securing evidence for the cops.

 

[BulletProof]

There is assumed consent for life saving measures. Testing the BAC is relevant for medical treatment. But it is not securing evidence for the cops.

If the nurse wasn't stupid, she would have told the cop that there already was a BAC test, so no need to do another one. If the nurse wasn't stupid, she wouldn't have thought hospital policy is a valid reason to refuse a police instruction. If her defenders weren't stupid, they'd understand that a confrontation with the cops is not the place settle the law.

 

[ricechickie]

There is assumed consent for life saving measures. Testing the BAC is relevant for medical treatment. But it is not securing evidence for the cops.

If the nurse wasn't stupid, she would have told the cop that there already was a BAC test, so no need to do another one. If the nurse wasn't stupid, she wouldn't have thought hospital policy is a valid reason to refuse a police instruction. If her defenders weren't stupid, they'd understand that a confrontation with the cops is not the place settle the law.

The nurse clearly wasn't stupid. She was professional.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is assumed consent for life saving measures. Testing the BAC is relevant for medical treatment. But it is not securing evidence for the cops.

If the nurse wasn't stupid, she would have told the cop that there already was a BAC test, so no need to do another one. If the nurse wasn't stupid, she wouldn't have thought hospital policy is a valid reason to refuse a police instruction. If her defenders weren't stupid, they'd understand that a confrontation with the cops is not the place settle the law.

So we should just let the cops do whatever they want, even if it is illegal, and sort it out later?

Sorry, we are not a police state just yet.

 

[rightwinger]

And I assume nothing about the chase. The simple reality is they limit their liability if they find drugs in the blood. That's why they were hellbent on getting it.

This isn't mob justice either, asshole. Cops that don't follow the law should be replaced.

You're assuming the cops acted negligently in the car chase. You're assuming that man you call your dad is really your dad.

The only reason this cop, who was following instructions from his superior, might be fired is to appease you fools in the mob who emotionally an brainlessly react to a video of the woman being arrested and dragged out.

Wrong, the main reason this cop might (and probably) will be fired is he committed the sin of loosing his temper and overreacting in this situation. The nurse had a copy of the agreed upon hospital policy in her hand which the officer completely discounted/ignored, all the officer had to do was go into the room and put the patient under arrest....... problem solved.

But the cop KNEW they didn't have probable cause. That was why he didn't arrest him.

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..........

That would change everything about this story. I have not seen that reported. Where does this information come from? Can you provide a link?

I have also seen that reported. It is in the official report of the incident

As much a jerk as Officer Payne was being, he was in contact with his management

They should have ordered him to stand down. Instead, they ordered him to do whatever necessary to get that sample

 

[BulletProof]

The nurse clearly wasn't stupid. She was professional.

If being inflexible and getting yourself arrested, after making an invalid and unnecessary argument, is professional.

She was a typical female demonstrating why women make poor leaders. Women are sticklers for following the rules, without regard for progress. Men care more about the progress than with blindly following rules. The male officer was more concerned with progress in protecting the man in the coma than with following unclear rules.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The nurse should not have gotten all hysterical. It never works out well.

She should have stuck the cop with 100 units of insulin. OOPS!

Why? Is the cop a pothead? I'm all for giving dopers a hot shot.

The nurse should not have gotten hysterical. The doctor was on the phone trying to explain that drawing blood without consent or a warrant was against hospital policy. This means that NO ONE would have been able to draw blood. It wasn't going to happen. Unless the cop was prepared to arrest each and every person at the hospital, that nurse was going to go home in a few minutes and sue the city. She should have laughed right in that cop's face.

She didn't get hysterical until she was kidnapped...at that point, she probably expected to be beaten, raped, or both.

 

[ricechickie]

The nurse clearly wasn't stupid. She was professional.

If being inflexible and getting yourself arrested, after making an invalid and unnecessary argument, is professional.

She was a typical female demonstrating why women make poor leaders. Women are sticklers for following the rules, without regard for progress. Men care more about the progress than with blindly following rules. The male officer was more concerned with progress in protecting the man in the coma than with following unclear rules.

Oh. Now I see where you're coming from.

Does it make you feel better to know that the nurse was on the phone with a male supervisor? And she printed out a list of the very clearly defined rules, which the police department agreed to?

No, of course it doesn't make a difference to you. She was just a dumb female.

You are what's wrong.

 

[BulletProof]

So we should just let the cops do whatever they want, even if it is illegal, and sort it out later?

Sorry, we are not a police state just yet.

If a cop does whatever he wants, he should face the consequences. You advocate people doing whatever they want, without consequences. In response to that lawlessness, the police state will grow. You are an unwitting friend of the police state.

 

[BulletProof]

She didn't get hysterical until she was kidnapped...at that point, she probably expected to be beaten, raped, or both.

Stupid people are impressed by hysterical behavior. Not long ago, there was a big public outcry against an airlines that literally dragged a man off a plane. The public was outraged at the airlines kicking people off "unjustly". Yet, every day people are "unjustly" kicked off of airplanes, but they don't make a scene about it so people like you don't care.

If this nurse hadn't acted hysterically after being arrested, (and unprofessionally before then, she wouldn't have gotten much public sympathy. This thread wouldn't even exist.

Sorry, I don't believe in rewarding hysterics and lawlessness.