nurse cuffed by cop for not breaking law

[Travis]

Video has emerged of a police officer arresting a nurse for not violating the law and drawing blood from a comatose patient who cannot give consent. The cop is enraged and cuffs the nurse for interfering in an investigation.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...lice-video-of-crazy-arrest-by-SL-officer.html

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/dis...-refusing-to-draw-unconscious-patients-blood/

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Forget coffee, I'm awake now.

Seriously, forearm skin flushed and cheeks hot, that made me *********** livid to see.

Especially when, after the ape-man goes roid rage on her, the pipsqueak "good cop" comes along and coos at her that they are in the right and she'd better see it their way or she'll face (more) consequences. He might sound nicer and more reasonable, but he's actually the nefarious two-faced piece of **** that turns the physical assault into currency to get the outcome they want. Every bit as complicit in the deed.

If he had real concern for her safety and the proper legal outcome, he'd put the ******* with the spare tire around his waist in handcuffs and drag him to the car.

With a nightstick.

By the throat.

 

[GlennB]

The cop has a pretty rapid transition phase from 'calm' to 'losing it'.

 

[LTC8K6]

Good for her for protecting her patient.

Why are we taking blood from the victim of a crime, without consent?

I can't think of any legal reason for the police to take blood from the victim of a traffic accident, nor can I ever see a judge issuing a warrant for it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Good for her for protecting her patient.

Why are we taking blood from the victim of a crime, without consent?

I can't think of any legal reason for the police to take blood from the victim of a traffic accident, nor can I ever see a judge issuing a warrant for it.

If they're pursuing charges against the other driver, they want to know the victim wasn't intoxicated to have a clean case. When the cop says to the administrator that the hospital is just trying to minimize its liability (already a lie, they are obeying HIPAA, which is a *drumroll please* law!) he's actually projecting. The police are protecting their own asses because they don't want to indict and then get bit in the ass with unforeseen evidence.

The cop complains about the 2 days of waiting for warrant (oh boo hoo!). What he means is that writing an affidavit is really tedious and boring. Given the stunning command of basic English displayed among these cops, I can see why writing up an argument to violate a comatose patient's rights that would impress a jurist with a post graduate degree in law might be a daunting task to them. Roughing up a random citizen and getting them to do their work for them is much more in line with their skill set, so they just go with what they are comfortable with.

ETA: They don't even care about the "discovery" implications of gathering the evidence unlawfully. If the victim tests positive for anything, they won't indict to begin with (or offer a weak plea they know will be taken before the evidence and tainted discovery are even known).

 

[casebro]

Nurses are not allowed to draw blood without a doctor's order.

Unconscious patients are under a doctor's care, the doc can make decisions for them.

State law probably requires consent to drunk tests as a condition of drivers license.

The cop should have talked to the doc. I suspect that is the way the system works.

 

[Information Analyst]

Home of the Free, eh?

 

[pgwenthold]

Good for her for protecting her patient.

Why are we taking blood from the victim of a crime, without consent?

I can't think of any legal reason for the police to take blood from the victim of a traffic accident, nor can I ever see a judge issuing a warrant for it.

Oh, there is plenty of reason to check the blood of a person involved in an accident. Impaired driving causes accidents.

But the answer is simple: get a warrant.

If there is a reason to suspect the driver was impaired, the judge will likely grant it. But if you don't have the warrant? Then that is a problem.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nurses are not allowed to draw blood without a doctor's order.

Unconscious patients are under a doctor's care, the doc can make decisions for them.

State law probably requires consent to drunk tests as a condition of drivers license.

The cop should have talked to the doc. I suspect that is the way the system works.

I think it's pretty clear that the police had no right or reason to take blood from the victim, though. He was neither suspected of, nor charged with, any crime.

There's no implied consent in that state.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Nurses are not allowed to draw blood without a doctor's order.

Unconscious patients are under a doctor's care, the doc can make decisions for them.

State law probably requires consent to drunk tests as a condition of drivers license.

The cop should have talked to the doc. I suspect that is the way the system works.

If they're suspecting someone else, let's say known to be intoxicated and with witnesses attesting to their likely fault in the collision. What "reasonable suspicion" is there to order a test on the victim, who's behavior was never observed other than being unconscious following severe trauma and shock?

They don't even have to argue with the doctor about it (who is not necessarily a legal scholar). If they have a legal argument they want to articulate as to why they should be allowed to take this course of action, they take it to a judge for a warrant to do so.

If they walk into that hospital ward 2 days later with a warrant, guess what? A nurse will be summoned to take a blood sample, a lab tech will process it, every set of hands it passes through will be dutifully cataloged and timestamped, and it will all be placed in sealed, tamper-proof containers and couriered directly to the crime lab, etc. There are rigorous, and I mean exhaustive, processes for all this stuff. That's the exact reason why when someone walks in without the right piece of paper they get 5 people with phones in their hands having just called their lawyers on speed dial explaining that they just got asked to become conspirators in a criminal act.

 

[LTC8K6]

Oh, there is plenty of reason to check the blood of a person involved in an accident. Impaired driving causes accidents.

But the answer is simple: get a warrant.

If there is a reason to suspect the driver was impaired, the judge will likely grant it. But if you don't have the warrant? Then that is a problem.

He was the victim. He was not suspected of anything. He was hit by the other driver. Police did not suspect that he was drinking.

He didn't smell of alcohol, and he didn't fail any sobriety tests, so the police could not have reasonably thought he was impaired.

 

[blutoski]

Nurses are not allowed to draw blood without a doctor's order.

Unconscious patients are under a doctor's care, the doc can make decisions for them.

State law probably requires consent to drunk tests as a condition of drivers license.

The cop should have talked to the doc. I suspect that is the way the system works.

The police weren't asking the nurse to actually draw blood - this officer was skilled to draw blood on his own. She was interfering with the officer drawing blood himself. Nobody - not an MD, not a nurse, not a police officer - has the authority to override the patient's rights in this situation.

And she was in the right, she understood the applicable law. His attempt to draw blood outside the legal scenario list (basically if the patient was under arrest, or if they obtained a warrant, neither of which was the case) was technically assault and battery on the patient.

My understanding is that he's been removed from that skillset (not allowed to take blood samples pending review) but I'm not confident there will be any actual consequences.

The officer claims he was acting in the victim's best interest (to refute any accusations that the victim might be partly to blame for being under the influence) but he was too ignorant to understand that if this evidence is illegally obtained, it can't be submitted anyway.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The cop should have talked to the doc. I suspect that is the way the system works.

Did you actually read the first article?

Wubbels, who is surrounded by other hospital staffers, explains in the video that she is doing what her bosses told her to do. She eventually prints out a copy of the policy for blood draws — one that Salt Lake police agreed to more than a year ago, according to Porter — and shows it to the officer.

There is a written policy that the police agreed to and the detective was not following. It's quite clear from elsewhere in the article that this policy involves getting a warrant, and it strongly implies that a quiet and cosy chat with the doctor isn't acceptable either.

Dave

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nurses are not allowed to draw blood without a doctor's order.

Unconscious patients are under a doctor's care, the doc can make decisions for them.

State law probably requires consent to drunk tests as a condition of drivers license.

The cop should have talked to the doc. I suspect that is the way the system works.

Even if the doctor orders the blood draw, nurses are allowed and even required to refuse if they believe the order is wrong. In such a case the doc, if s/he ordered the blood draw, would likely draw the blood themselves.

The hospital might have some obligation to provide police services but I don't believe individual nurses are obligated. A cop can order someone to move out of the way, I sincerely doubt a police officer can order a nurse to draw someone's blood. I've seen nurses refuse to draw blood for DUIs because it requires you to go to court later and testify re who you drew blood from and identify that is the blood you drew.

It was shameful the ED administrator did not get involved and either support the nurse's decision or find another nurse to draw the blood.
Edited to add, this was apparently not the case.

Regardless, that cop was an idiot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
There is a written policy that the police agreed to and the detective was not following. It's quite clear from elsewhere in the article that this policy involves getting a warrant, and it strongly implies that a quiet and cosy chat with the doctor isn't acceptable either.

Dave

A warrant makes sense. Contempt of ******* cop, only difference is the nurse wasn't black.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The police weren't asking the nurse to actually draw blood - this officer was skilled to draw blood on his own. She was interfering with the officer drawing blood himself. Nobody - not an MD, not a nurse, not a police officer - has the authority to override the patient's rights in this situation.

And she was in the right, she understood the applicable law. His attempt to draw blood outside the legal scenario list (basically if the patient was under arrest, or if they obtained a warrant, neither of which was the case) was technically assault and battery on the patient.

My understanding is that he's been removed from that skillset (not allowed to take blood samples pending review) but I'm not confident there will be any actual consequences.

The officer claims he was acting in the victim's best interest (to refute any accusations that the victim might be partly to blame for being under the influence) but he was too ignorant to understand that if this evidence is illegally obtained, it can't be submitted anyway.

What makes you think the cop was able to draw blood?

From the first link:

She was arrested after refusing to give Payne vials of blood that he needed for an investigation because she said he did not have a warrant or meet any of the mandatory criteria needed for taking blood.

Nurse was in the right, no warrant.

 

[blutoski]

It was shameful the ED administrator did not get involved and either support the nurse's decision or find another nurse to draw the blood.

I agree - the hospital security is responsible for protecting the staff, and they were idle while a rogue cop roughed up one of their charges.

I'm thinking the hospital needs to review their managers' competence, because this is one of those "[you had one job]" situations.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The cop has a pretty rapid transition phase from 'calm' to 'losing it'.

That's de rigeur for American cops, I'm afraid. Something in the training or recruitment selects for the insecure bullies.

 

[Ziggurat]

The officer claims he was acting in the victim's best interest (to refute any accusations that the victim might be partly to blame for being under the influence) but he was too ignorant to understand that if this evidence is illegally obtained, it can't be submitted anyway.

Is that really the case here? Evidence which is illegally obtained is often thrown out, but usually the defendant is the one whose rights were violated in obtaining that evidence. If the rights of some third party are violated, does the defendant still have standing to have it thrown out? Or does it require the third party whose rights were violated to object in order for the evidence to be discarded? Can the victim retroactively approve the obtaining of that evidence? IANAL, but it's the sort of thing I can imagine as being possible.

Not that this excuses the cop, since the act is still illegal in and of itself, just that the consequences for the case the police are trying to build aren't actually so obvious to me.

 

[fagin]

What makes you think the cop was able to draw blood?

From the first link:Nurse was in the right, no warrant.

Kind of says so, or strongly implies so in the articles.