Nurse arrested for following hospital policy

[Montrovant]

WTF? Look, once more, there are 3 ways to legally collect blood for evidence.

1) Consent from the patient.
2) A warrant
3) The patient is under arrest.

Once again:

Police can collect evidence in an emergency, that is when the evidence is going to disappear. And, it's not the nurse's place to lawyer the cop, let alone cite policy as a reason to resist.

There is no legal precedent for collecting blood without one of the 3 conditions I listed being met. None. And there are volumes of cases that back the nurse.

The idea that a cop should be allowed to break the law, violate hospital policy, and expect to be granted immunity, is laughable.

The cop was wrong.

Actually, there is legal precedent for collecting blood outside of those 3 conditions. In the Missouri v McNeely opinion, the USSC said that exigent circumstances can make a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw legally acceptable. However, the mere fact that alcohol is being broken down normally is not enough reason for such an intrusion.

In Schmerber v. California, the court ruled that drawing blood from a man arrested for DUI without a warrant was acceptable within the protections of the fourth amendment, because the circumstances made obtaining a warrant unreasonable; the man had been taken to the hospital, and the scene of the accident had been investigated, so a good deal of time had passed, meaning the BAC was already being significantly lowered, so the officer(s) was reasonably expected to deem it an "emergency" situation to draw blood before the alcohol was removed from the suspect's system.

In Schmerber, however, the suspect had been arrested for drunk driving, so the situation was different. In this case, the driver in question was not arrested, and I don't know that there was any reason for the police to believe the driver had been drinking (wasn't it the truck driver who was hit by a car fleeing police?). I can't say whether the court would consider these circumstances enough for officers to deem it an "emergency" situation, although I lean towards no. The point, however, is that there are legal precedents for drawing blood without consent or a warrant in exigent circumstances.

Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 US ___ (2013)

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

A "typical female," huh? Now this situation was based on the nurse being a woman?

As though your previous arguments weren't ridiculous enough....

The woman was willing to argue to protect the rights of an unconscious patient.

She had no right to protect the patient's "rights". The hospital policy isn't there to protect patient rights. The policy is in place to protect the hospital from malpractice liability.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

WTF? Look, once more, there are 3 ways to legally collect blood for evidence.

1) Consent from the patient.
2) A warrant
3) The patient is under arrest.

Once again:

Police can collect evidence in an emergency, that is when the evidence is going to disappear. And, it's not the nurse's place to lawyer the cop, let alone cite policy as a reason to resist.

There is no legal precedent for collecting blood without one of the 3 conditions I listed being met. None. And there are volumes of cases that back the nurse.

The idea that a cop should be allowed to break the law, violate hospital policy, and expect to be granted immunity, is laughable.

The cop was wrong.

Actually, there is legal precedent for collecting blood outside of those 3 conditions. In the Missouri v McNeely opinion, the USSC said that exigent circumstances can make a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw legally acceptable. However, the mere fact that alcohol is being broken down normally is not enough reason for such an intrusion.

In Schmerber v. California, the court ruled that drawing blood from a man arrested for DUI without a warrant was acceptable within the protections of the fourth amendment, because the circumstances made obtaining a warrant unreasonable; the man had been taken to the hospital, and the scene of the accident had been investigated, so a good deal of time had passed, meaning the BAC was already being significantly lowered, so the officer(s) was reasonably expected to deem it an "emergency" situation to draw blood before the alcohol was removed from the suspect's system.

In Schmerber, however, the suspect had been arrested for drunk driving, so the situation was different. In this case, the driver in question was not arrested, and I don't know that there was any reason for the police to believe the driver had been drinking (wasn't it the truck driver who was hit by a car fleeing police?). I can't say whether the court would consider these circumstances enough for officers to deem it an "emergency" situation, although I lean towards no. The point, however, is that there are legal precedents for drawing blood without consent or a warrant in exigent circumstances.

Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 US ___ (2013)

Exigent circumstances include the impossibility of getting a judge to sign a warrant.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

A "typical female," huh? Now this situation was based on the nurse being a woman?

As though your previous arguments weren't ridiculous enough....

The woman was willing to argue to protect the rights of an unconscious patient.

She had no right to protect the patient's "rights". The hospital policy isn't there to protect patient rights. The policy is in place to protect the hospital from malpractice liability.

The patient has rights under the 4th amendment. The nurse DID protect those rights as well.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Preposterous. For some reason it only applies to cops. When you buy a car, you are expected to read the owners manual and find out what all the little buttons and such do on the car. You can't just drive it and later claim ignorance. If the information was available, clearly stated, and not read by you, that is not the car makers fault. The same is true of pilots. They are expected to find out what the weather is along their route. If they don't, they can't blame the company and evade responsibility for any damage or injuries.

Doctors read medical journals to find out what the newest treatment and studies have taught us. Lawyers read legal journals to find out what the newest legal decisions are, and what they mean. Truckers read information about trucking. But only cops have learned all they need to know at the academy, and if something changes well, that is the responsibility of someone else to find them, and force them to sit down and absorb the information. Preposterous.

Anyone else who didn't do that, find the available information on their own, would be considered negligent. Possibly even criminally negligent. Yet the cops are special. They can't be held responsible for a mistake. It might ruin their career and chase a good guy out of a job.

A good Doctor who ignored readily available information could lose his license and thus his job. But that is totally different. Because they're cops, or something.

A lawyer who ignored readily available information could lose his license. But that is totally different. Cops or something.

If the Nurse had knowingly drawn blood when she knew she was prohibited by the Law could lose her job, and license to be a Nurse, but she's wrong, because cops or something.

Abu Ghraib was not another example of I was only following orders as a horrible defense, but another example of fucking Liberals fucking up the god damned system, right?

Cops are just different, or something. And that belief is what makes you completely full of shit. The pilot we mentioned above could claim that the Company did not force him to sit down and find out the weather on his route was so extreme that it was unsafe. He could claim that the Airport let him leave without forcing him to learn what the weather was like. He would lose his license, but that's because he's not a cop right?

We expect the best from people in authority. We demand the best from professionals who are entrusted with our lives, and our freedoms. Not just cops. A Doctor who makes horrific mistakes using old treatments that are no longer applicable can't plead ignorance. A Lawyer who quotes a law that is no longer valid can't claim ignorance. But a cop can. Because no one forced him to learn it.

 

[BulletProof]

The patient has rights under the 4th amendment. The nurse DID protect those rights as well.

The nurse didn't protect anyone, at all. Ignoring the a blood BAC was done anyway, the cop asking for the blood BAC was the one trying to protect the patient. The nurse stood in the way of the cop collecting exonerating evidence. Oh yeah, and it's not the nurse's place to play lawyer with the cop.

 

[WinterBorn]

The patient has rights under the 4th amendment. The nurse DID protect those rights as well.

The nurse didn't protect anyone, at all. Ignoring the a blood BAC was done anyway, the cop asking for the blood BAC was the one trying to protect the patient. The nurse stood in the way of the cop collecting exonerating evidence. Oh yeah, and it's not the nurse's place to play lawyer with the cop.

It is not the cops place to demand that hospital employees ignore protocol (and law).

 

[Montrovant]

The patient has rights under the 4th amendment. The nurse DID protect those rights as well.

The nurse didn't protect anyone, at all. Ignoring the a blood BAC was done anyway, the cop asking for the blood BAC was the one trying to protect the patient. The nurse stood in the way of the cop collecting exonerating evidence. Oh yeah, and it's not the nurse's place to play lawyer with the cop.

How is that in any way protecting the patient? The patient was not charged with a crime. The only possible change from a BAC test on the patient would be to find evidence of his having committed a crime; there is no need to exonerate someone who is not going to be charged with anything. Do you have some reason to believe the truck driver was going to be charged with a crime?

"Sir, you are not being charged with a crime, nor are you a suspect in a criminal investigation. However, we are going to search you without consent, in order to protect you from charges we have no reason to expect will be levied against you."

Do you think the police should take a blood draw from every driver involved in an accident, just to "protect" those drivers from possible DUI charges?

 

[ricechickie]

WTF? Look, once more, there are 3 ways to legally collect blood for evidence.

1) Consent from the patient.
2) A warrant
3) The patient is under arrest.

Once again:

Police can collect evidence in an emergency, that is when the evidence is going to disappear. And, it's not the nurse's place to lawyer the cop, let alone cite policy as a reason to resist.

There is no legal precedent for collecting blood without one of the 3 conditions I listed being met. None. And there are volumes of cases that back the nurse.

The idea that a cop should be allowed to break the law, violate hospital policy, and expect to be granted immunity, is laughable.

The cop was wrong.

Actually, there is legal precedent for collecting blood outside of those 3 conditions. In the Missouri v McNeely opinion, the USSC said that exigent circumstances can make a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw legally acceptable. However, the mere fact that alcohol is being broken down normally is not enough reason for such an intrusion.

In Schmerber v. California, the court ruled that drawing blood from a man arrested for DUI without a warrant was acceptable within the protections of the fourth amendment, because the circumstances made obtaining a warrant unreasonable; the man had been taken to the hospital, and the scene of the accident had been investigated, so a good deal of time had passed, meaning the BAC was already being significantly lowered, so the officer(s) was reasonably expected to deem it an "emergency" situation to draw blood before the alcohol was removed from the suspect's system.

In Schmerber, however, the suspect had been arrested for drunk driving, so the situation was different. In this case, the driver in question was not arrested, and I don't know that there was any reason for the police to believe the driver had been drinking (wasn't it the truck driver who was hit by a car fleeing police?). I can't say whether the court would consider these circumstances enough for officers to deem it an "emergency" situation, although I lean towards no. The point, however, is that there are legal precedents for drawing blood without consent or a warrant in exigent circumstances.

Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 US ___ (2013)

Exigent circumstances include the impossibility of getting a judge to sign a warrant.

That would carry some weight if there was any evidence that they tried to get a judge to sign a warrant.

 

[Montrovant]

WTF? Look, once more, there are 3 ways to legally collect blood for evidence.

1) Consent from the patient.
2) A warrant
3) The patient is under arrest.

Once again:

Police can collect evidence in an emergency, that is when the evidence is going to disappear. And, it's not the nurse's place to lawyer the cop, let alone cite policy as a reason to resist.

There is no legal precedent for collecting blood without one of the 3 conditions I listed being met. None. And there are volumes of cases that back the nurse.

The idea that a cop should be allowed to break the law, violate hospital policy, and expect to be granted immunity, is laughable.

The cop was wrong.

Actually, there is legal precedent for collecting blood outside of those 3 conditions. In the Missouri v McNeely opinion, the USSC said that exigent circumstances can make a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw legally acceptable. However, the mere fact that alcohol is being broken down normally is not enough reason for such an intrusion.

In Schmerber v. California, the court ruled that drawing blood from a man arrested for DUI without a warrant was acceptable within the protections of the fourth amendment, because the circumstances made obtaining a warrant unreasonable; the man had been taken to the hospital, and the scene of the accident had been investigated, so a good deal of time had passed, meaning the BAC was already being significantly lowered, so the officer(s) was reasonably expected to deem it an "emergency" situation to draw blood before the alcohol was removed from the suspect's system.

In Schmerber, however, the suspect had been arrested for drunk driving, so the situation was different. In this case, the driver in question was not arrested, and I don't know that there was any reason for the police to believe the driver had been drinking (wasn't it the truck driver who was hit by a car fleeing police?). I can't say whether the court would consider these circumstances enough for officers to deem it an "emergency" situation, although I lean towards no. The point, however, is that there are legal precedents for drawing blood without consent or a warrant in exigent circumstances.

Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 US ___ (2013)

Exigent circumstances include the impossibility of getting a judge to sign a warrant.

That would carry some weight if there was any evidence that they tried to get a judge to sign a warrant.

I think that Tipsy was being sarcastic.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Or stupid/psycho. It IS tipsy, after all..........

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Or stupid/psycho. It IS tipsy, after all..........

I'm the only one here that has actually brought motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence.

It's laughable the complete and total idiocrats who garble on about the cop being in the wrong. I tell them why the cop is in the wrong and the idiocrats attack me thus proving once and for all what complete fools they are.

Tsk tsk.

 

[bodecea]

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.

A "typical female," huh? Now this situation was based on the nurse being a woman?

As though your previous arguments weren't ridiculous enough....

The woman was willing to argue to protect the rights of an unconscious patient.

She had no right to protect the patient's "rights". The hospital policy isn't there to protect patient rights. The policy is in place to protect the hospital from malpractice liability.

"She had no right to protect the patient's 'rights'"....She most certainly did...and an obligation as a nurse as an American citizen and as a human being.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

WTF? Look, once more, there are 3 ways to legally collect blood for evidence.

1) Consent from the patient.
2) A warrant
3) The patient is under arrest.

Once again:

Police can collect evidence in an emergency, that is when the evidence is going to disappear. And, it's not the nurse's place to lawyer the cop, let alone cite policy as a reason to resist.

There is no legal precedent for collecting blood without one of the 3 conditions I listed being met. None. And there are volumes of cases that back the nurse.

The idea that a cop should be allowed to break the law, violate hospital policy, and expect to be granted immunity, is laughable.

The cop was wrong.

Actually, there is legal precedent for collecting blood outside of those 3 conditions. In the Missouri v McNeely opinion, the USSC said that exigent circumstances can make a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw legally acceptable. However, the mere fact that alcohol is being broken down normally is not enough reason for such an intrusion.

In Schmerber v. California, the court ruled that drawing blood from a man arrested for DUI without a warrant was acceptable within the protections of the fourth amendment, because the circumstances made obtaining a warrant unreasonable; the man had been taken to the hospital, and the scene of the accident had been investigated, so a good deal of time had passed, meaning the BAC was already being significantly lowered, so the officer(s) was reasonably expected to deem it an "emergency" situation to draw blood before the alcohol was removed from the suspect's system.

In Schmerber, however, the suspect had been arrested for drunk driving, so the situation was different. In this case, the driver in question was not arrested, and I don't know that there was any reason for the police to believe the driver had been drinking (wasn't it the truck driver who was hit by a car fleeing police?). I can't say whether the court would consider these circumstances enough for officers to deem it an "emergency" situation, although I lean towards no. The point, however, is that there are legal precedents for drawing blood without consent or a warrant in exigent circumstances.

Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 US ___ (2013)

Exigent circumstances include the impossibility of getting a judge to sign a warrant.

That would carry some weight if there was any evidence that they tried to get a judge to sign a warrant.

So there were no exigent circumstances were there?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

A "typical female," huh? Now this situation was based on the nurse being a woman?

As though your previous arguments weren't ridiculous enough....

The woman was willing to argue to protect the rights of an unconscious patient.

She had no right to protect the patient's "rights". The hospital policy isn't there to protect patient rights. The policy is in place to protect the hospital from malpractice liability.

"She had no right to protect the patient's 'rights'"....She most certainly did...and an obligation as a nurse as an American citizen and as a human being.

Ohhh then you will no doubt produce the power of attorney giving her that right. We'll wait. Go get it.

 

[ricechickie]

Once again:

Police can collect evidence in an emergency, that is when the evidence is going to disappear. And, it's not the nurse's place to lawyer the cop, let alone cite policy as a reason to resist.

There is no legal precedent for collecting blood without one of the 3 conditions I listed being met. None. And there are volumes of cases that back the nurse.

The idea that a cop should be allowed to break the law, violate hospital policy, and expect to be granted immunity, is laughable.

The cop was wrong.

Actually, there is legal precedent for collecting blood outside of those 3 conditions. In the Missouri v McNeely opinion, the USSC said that exigent circumstances can make a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw legally acceptable. However, the mere fact that alcohol is being broken down normally is not enough reason for such an intrusion.

In Schmerber v. California, the court ruled that drawing blood from a man arrested for DUI without a warrant was acceptable within the protections of the fourth amendment, because the circumstances made obtaining a warrant unreasonable; the man had been taken to the hospital, and the scene of the accident had been investigated, so a good deal of time had passed, meaning the BAC was already being significantly lowered, so the officer(s) was reasonably expected to deem it an "emergency" situation to draw blood before the alcohol was removed from the suspect's system.

In Schmerber, however, the suspect had been arrested for drunk driving, so the situation was different. In this case, the driver in question was not arrested, and I don't know that there was any reason for the police to believe the driver had been drinking (wasn't it the truck driver who was hit by a car fleeing police?). I can't say whether the court would consider these circumstances enough for officers to deem it an "emergency" situation, although I lean towards no. The point, however, is that there are legal precedents for drawing blood without consent or a warrant in exigent circumstances.

Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 US ___ (2013)

Exigent circumstances include the impossibility of getting a judge to sign a warrant.

That would carry some weight if there was any evidence that they tried to get a judge to sign a warrant.

So there were no exigent circumstances were there?

Nope.

 

[ricechickie]

Once again:

Police can collect evidence in an emergency, that is when the evidence is going to disappear. And, it's not the nurse's place to lawyer the cop, let alone cite policy as a reason to resist.

There is no legal precedent for collecting blood without one of the 3 conditions I listed being met. None. And there are volumes of cases that back the nurse.

The idea that a cop should be allowed to break the law, violate hospital policy, and expect to be granted immunity, is laughable.

The cop was wrong.

Actually, there is legal precedent for collecting blood outside of those 3 conditions. In the Missouri v McNeely opinion, the USSC said that exigent circumstances can make a warrantless, non-consensual blood draw legally acceptable. However, the mere fact that alcohol is being broken down normally is not enough reason for such an intrusion.

In Schmerber v. California, the court ruled that drawing blood from a man arrested for DUI without a warrant was acceptable within the protections of the fourth amendment, because the circumstances made obtaining a warrant unreasonable; the man had been taken to the hospital, and the scene of the accident had been investigated, so a good deal of time had passed, meaning the BAC was already being significantly lowered, so the officer(s) was reasonably expected to deem it an "emergency" situation to draw blood before the alcohol was removed from the suspect's system.

In Schmerber, however, the suspect had been arrested for drunk driving, so the situation was different. In this case, the driver in question was not arrested, and I don't know that there was any reason for the police to believe the driver had been drinking (wasn't it the truck driver who was hit by a car fleeing police?). I can't say whether the court would consider these circumstances enough for officers to deem it an "emergency" situation, although I lean towards no. The point, however, is that there are legal precedents for drawing blood without consent or a warrant in exigent circumstances.

Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Missouri v. McNeely 569 US ___ (2013)

Exigent circumstances include the impossibility of getting a judge to sign a warrant.

That would carry some weight if there was any evidence that they tried to get a judge to sign a warrant.

I think that Tipsy was being sarcastic.

If you say so. I can never get a read on her.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Simple: she is a psychotic shrew, who is either delusional or a serial killer in the making. Either way, she should probably be in a straitjacket.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

She had no right to protect the patient's "rights". The hospital policy isn't there to protect patient rights. The policy is in place to protect the hospital from malpractice liability.

That is the most idiotic thing you've said so far. Doctors and nurses are the first line of overseers of patient rights. When they get broken, that is precisely why malpractice suits occur.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

A "typical female," huh? Now this situation was based on the nurse being a woman?

As though your previous arguments weren't ridiculous enough....

The woman was willing to argue to protect the rights of an unconscious patient.

She had no right to protect the patient's "rights". The hospital policy isn't there to protect patient rights. The policy is in place to protect the hospital from malpractice liability.

Fortunately, she managed to do both at the same time. And, as a bonus, to protect herself. Very efficient.