• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

nurse cuffed by cop for not breaking law

Beelzebuddy said:
That's de rigeur for American cops, I'm afraid. Something in the training or recruitment selects for the insecure bullies.
Click to expand...

People tend to have an unconscious bias towards selecting individuals similar to themselves.
 
Stacko said:
People tend to have an unconscious bias towards selecting individuals similar to themselves.
Click to expand...
In my experience with cops, and I have a fair amount of professional contact with them, is that people on power trips are attracted to the profession for that very reason. Then when they get there, they reinforce each other's power trips.
 
In this state, I think, "Implied Consent" basically means an admission of guilt if you don't do a breath test or give a blood sample. Could be wrong; I'll have to look it up.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In my experience with cops, and I have a fair amount of professional contact with them, is that people on power trips are attracted to the profession for that very reason. Then when they get there, they reinforce each other's power trips.
Click to expand...

Not only those who have power trips but those who have an axe to grind or a bone to pick. One of the sheriff's deputies from a county just north of me was the guy everyone picked on in high school. He got a badge to get a sort of undirected revenge. He lasted a couple years before the citizen review board got rid of him.
 
Trebuchet said:
Am I the only one finding it disturbing that there's such a thing as a "Police phlebotomist", who's supposedly trained to take blood?
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're probably the only one. It makes a lot of sense to have a phlebotomist available (and it's not exactly a hard skill to learn) to take blood samples given both the dumb war on drugs and the smart war on DWIs.

What doesn't make sense is sending your police phlebotomist to the hospital to try taking blood from a patient. Even if said officer is smart, considerate, and observant of the law, it's just much easier to request (or compel via warrant, if necessary) a blood sample be provided by hospital personnel...and when a patient is injured and in the emergency room, it's possible or likely (depending on the injury) that they already have a sample available which can be split with the crime lab.

The police phlebotomist should be saved for taking blood samples from people in custody but not in the hospital.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
In this state, I think, "Implied Consent" basically means an admission of guilt if you don't do a breath test or give a blood sample. Could be wrong; I'll have to look it up.
Click to expand...

In Utah, in the part of the law I omitted, it gives the penalty for refusing to give a sample as forfeiture of your driver license. Since that's a civil penalty only, it passes constitutional muster. States that impose a criminal penalty for refusal to provide a specimen generally have Fifth Amendment problems sooner or later with those laws. Wasn't there a high profile court case just recently on this?
 
Babbylonian said:
Yeah, you're probably the only one. It makes a lot of sense to have a phlebotomist available (and it's not exactly a hard skill to learn) to take blood samples given both the dumb war on drugs and the smart war on DWIs.

What doesn't make sense is sending your police phlebotomist to the hospital to try taking blood from a patient. Even if said officer is smart, considerate, and observant of the law, it's just much easier to request (or compel via warrant, if necessary) a blood sample be provided by hospital personnel...and when a patient is injured and in the emergency room, it's possible or likely (depending on the injury) that they already have a sample available which can be split with the crime lab.

The police phlebotomist should be saved for taking blood samples from people in custody but not in the hospital.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree. Cops should be (better) cops and do cop things. Medical personnel should do medical things.

And the cops shouldn't be "qualifying" rectal openings like this guy to stick needles in people.
 
Trebuchet said:
Gotta disagree. Cops should be (better) cops and do cop things. Medical personnel should do medical things.

And the cops shouldn't be "qualifying" rectal openings like this guy to stick needles in people.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is nonsense. Having a nurse, or even a dedicated phlebotomist (much cheaper), on staff makes a lot less sense than having officers (who are already on duty) available to do this simple task when necessary.
 
My understanding is that it's a combination of chain-of-custody rules and sworn-officer rules. If a sworn officer draws the blood and initiates the chain of custody for that evidence, it has the desired legal strength. IANAL.
 
Trebuchet said:
Am I the only one finding it disturbing that there's such a thing as a "Police phlebotomist", who's supposedly trained to take blood?
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it makes some sense. Bringing patients into the ED for a blood draw for DUI is more expensive than it needs to be.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
Yeah, you're probably the only one. It makes a lot of sense to have a phlebotomist available (and it's not exactly a hard skill to learn) to take blood samples given both the dumb war on drugs and the smart war on DWIs.

What doesn't make sense is sending your police phlebotomist to the hospital to try taking blood from a patient. Even if said officer is smart, considerate, and observant of the law, it's just much easier to request (or compel via warrant, if necessary) a blood sample be provided by hospital personnel...and when a patient is injured and in the emergency room, it's possible or likely (depending on the injury) that they already have a sample available which can be split with the crime lab.

The police phlebotomist should be saved for taking blood samples from people in custody but not in the hospital.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
JayUtah said:
My understanding is that it's a combination of chain-of-custody rules and sworn-officer rules. If a sworn officer draws the blood and initiates the chain of custody for that evidence, it has the desired legal strength. IANAL.
Click to expand...
Back to cost effectiveness, I can attest to the pain in the ass it is for a nurse to go to court to testify you drew the blood, that's the blood you drew, from that defendant and that you didn't use an alcohol prep pad when your drew it. Wastes days sometimes if trials are postponed.
 
I think the hospital should press charges against the cop for harassing the staff and assaulting this specific nurse. I know that won't happen.
 
Jodie said:
I think the hospital should press charges against the cop for harassing the staff and assaulting this specific nurse. I know that won't happen.
Click to expand...

It may. The district attorney has already called for a criminal investigation, the detective has been placed on administrative leave pending it, and the case has been referred to the Unified Police for investigation. The Unified Police are a separate department that polices all the municipalities that form part of the Greater Salt Lake area, many of whom don't have their own city departments. Charges may not be filed, of course, but it is being investigated as a crime at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom