View Full Version : Abuse of police authority - Arrests nurse when she refuses illegal search
RblDiver
09-01-2017, 14:41
I know at least the vast majority of us support police. This is good thing. However, I think it's also just as important for us to explicitly condemn illegal actions to keep them accountable.
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/01/police-demand-nurse-draw-blood-without-warrant-arrest-refuses/
There's an attached video from the cop's body camera. The nurse is following guidelines: The patient is unconscious, he's not under arrest nor does he have a warrant for his arrest. Under these circumstances, she cannot draw blood from the patient. The cop gets fed up, says "OK we're done here," tries to knock the phone out of her hand, and assaults her as she screams for help.
Seems like a very clear violation to me. All involved need to be disciplined and/or fired. Good on the nurse for protecting the patient's rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihQ1-LQOkns
OtterbatHellcat
09-01-2017, 14:48
Wow.
Zundfolge
09-01-2017, 14:50
He should be fired, never allowed to be a cop anywhere else and frankly jailed and/or fined under U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
I wish cops would deal with actual criminals that way.
ETA: I mean that rough. And only actual criminals.
Zundfolge
09-01-2017, 15:57
When I see a bad apple I want to metaphorically execute the fucker and the fuckers that planted the apple tree..
Agreed. Because ultimately its dicks like this that cause all the decent law abiding folk to turn away no not defend the police from the dishonest attacks by the BLM and DNC. Every time I see a jerk like this abusing "Muh Authoritah!" it makes me look at all cops with a little less respect, and I doubt I'm alone.
Reminds me of a guy I went to HS school with.
http://www.denverpost.com/2013/03/01/former-denver-cop-hector-paez-gets-8-years-for-assault-kidnapping/
OtterbatHellcat
09-01-2017, 16:05
I have the highest respect for cops doing stuff in the right, that will never change.
BushMasterBoy
09-01-2017, 16:10
I was gonna say something, but I didn't want to be labeled a cop-basher. I'm getting ready for surgery, so I will be putting my life in the hands of nurses like this very one.
RblDiver
09-01-2017, 16:20
Apparently his lieutenant was the one who told him to arrest the nurse if she refused to draw blood. Another take:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/01/every-cop-involved-in-the-arrest-of-this
There are retarded idiot in all sector. That being said, that fuking retard try to ruin her life.
Maybe he should get his life ruined after this video goes viral.
The worse one than this is when a police officer who arrested a public defender. That guy really must have been total full retard.
Arresting DA or public defender for nothing is as retarded as arresting a innocent judge by dragging them out of the bench.
OtterbatHellcat
09-01-2017, 16:26
As do I. But, I'm very careful to avoid the assumption that they are in the right because they are cops. Cronyism is a real problem - not limited to law enforcement - that prevents a lot of bad apples from being pruned out of a tree. I wish the "good ones" turned on the bad with more viciousness than a pit-bull after a propane salesman. It's rare to see that, though. Normally coworkers stand up for coworkers because... coworkers.
Agreed, Sir.
Jumpstart
09-01-2017, 16:40
Arrest that cop.
spqrzilla
09-01-2017, 16:50
.... as retarded as arresting a innocent judge by dragging them out of the bench.
For that, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is your man.
Reading more about this... Appears to be a debate over implied consent in lieu of a warrant. Sounds like a BS law. What point is the Fourth Amendment if you can waive your rights before being charged with a crime? As if the warrant is hard to get in the first place. Most judges just rubber stamp.
I really don't recognize this country any more.
At any rate, the Det. should have handled this a lot differently.
Here is a bit more recent story. The Detective has been placed on administrative leave pending at least the IA review, a Civilian Review Board, and a criminal investigation being conducted by another police department. It sounds like just about everyone from the Chief of Police, the Mayor and Governor have commented about how disturbed they are with the conduct of the Detective. Most, if not all of them have personally apologized to the nurse and they have begun working on making the policy for both the police and medical care providers clear to prevent this type of problem in the future.
In my experience, the police cannot have a bad relationship with emergency medical care providers. They are too important for any of us to treat them with anything less than the respect they deserve. Those same medical care providers can be a fantastic source of useful information and more importantly they can literally save your life someday. DO NOT PISS THEM OFF!
I can't imagine what that Detective was thinking. No excuses. I hope the reviews and investigations are thorough and he gets the justice he deserves.
Oh, and I can't speak for the nurse, but IMO, she should have turned around, quietly put her hands behind her back and smiled while she was thinking about the new car and house she was getting, and where she wanted to go on vacation, courtesy of the Salt Lake City tax payers. But that is just how I imagine I would behave.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/01/salt-lake-city-police-apologize-for-officer-handcuffing-nurse-who-refused-blood-draw-of-unconscious-patient/
KevDen2005
09-01-2017, 18:13
A blood draw can be taken if the patient is unconscious in most states for DUI. Implied consent is that you agree to give blood or breath upon probable cause by driving motor vehicle. Blood can also be drawn under exigent circumstance rules, similar to drugs, we realize the evidence can be destroyed quickly. There has been several supreme court cases on the matter regarding implied consent as well as what is referred to as "felony blood draw" or "forcible blood draw." In many regards it would determine what judicial district you're in on those departments operate with implied consent and felony blood draws.
BushMasterBoy
09-01-2017, 18:14
"An Idaho police department is thanking a Utah nurse for stopping a Salt Lake City officer from obtaining a blood sample from one of their reserve officers who was unconscious in a hospital."
Excerpted from MSM source...
I read the story and saw the video this morning. There's no excuse, and somebody no longer needs to be in a position of authority. That rotten apple spoils the bunch.
A blood draw can be taken if the patient is unconscious in most states for DUI. Implied consent is that you agree to give blood or breath upon probable cause by driving motor vehicle. Blood can also be drawn under exigent circumstance rules, similar to drugs, we realize the evidence can be destroyed quickly. There has been several supreme court cases on the matter regarding implied consent as well as what is referred to as "felony blood draw" or "forcible blood draw." In many regards it would determine what judicial district you're in on those departments operate with implied consent and felony blood draws.
From what I read, the individual in question was the victim, and was not under arrest. The perp was killed outright. Implied Consent laws were changed in Utah a decade ago, so what this officer wanted to do is not permitted.
Don't comment often but this is way too unfortunate. The nurse explained the circumstance to him and had the policy in writing write in front of him. He escalated things way to quickly and did nothing to try and find out the right answer. Pretty disgraceful. Agree he should lose his job and not be LEO anywhere. I can't imagine any department hiring him after this anyway. His "fellow" officers should help to push this guy out quickly.
A blood draw can be taken if the patient is unconscious in most states for DUI. Implied consent is that you agree to give blood or breath upon probable cause by driving motor vehicle. Blood can also be drawn under exigent circumstance rules, similar to drugs, we realize the evidence can be destroyed quickly. There has been several supreme court cases on the matter regarding implied consent as well as what is referred to as "felony blood draw" or "forcible blood draw." In many regards it would determine what judicial district you're in on those departments operate with implied consent and felony blood draws.
Watching the body cam vid, none of these phrases were mentioned. Where does that leave us?
GilpinGuy
09-01-2017, 19:59
As do I. But, I'm very careful to avoid the assumption that they are in the right because they are cops. Cronyism is a real problem - not limited to law enforcement - that prevents a lot of bad apples from being pruned out of a tree. I wish the "good ones" turned on the bad with more viciousness than a pit-bull after a propane salesman. It's rare to see that, though. Normally coworkers stand up for coworkers because... coworkers.
This is spot on.
Reminds me of a joke.
A cop asks a nurse if she knows what the doctors do with the foreskins that are removed during circumcisions.
She calmly replies, "Yes. They plant them in the ground and they grow into big dicks and then they give them badges and guns and call them cops."
KevDen2005
09-01-2017, 21:38
From what I read, the individual in question was the victim, and was not under arrest. The perp was killed outright. Implied Consent laws were changed in Utah a decade ago, so what this officer wanted to do is not permitted.
Okay. Not sure I actually made a stand on it. Just pointing out what implied consent is. It can also vary by state and by court circuit.
KevDen2005
09-01-2017, 21:40
Watching the body cam vid, none of these phrases were mentioned. Where does that leave us?
See my response to Gman. In general terms if a person suspected of DUI is given implied consent and they choose not to take a test then other administrative actions will be taken.
This would changed under certain felony circumstances where forced blood draws can take place and warrants are requested for such.
KevDen2005
09-01-2017, 21:43
As do I. But, I'm very careful to avoid the assumption that they are in the right because they are cops. Cronyism is a real problem - not limited to law enforcement - that prevents a lot of bad apples from being pruned out of a tree. I wish the "good ones" turned on the bad with more viciousness than a pit-bull after a propane salesman. It's rare to see that, though. Normally coworkers stand up for coworkers because... coworkers.
Police administrations have made this difficult to do. Instead they go after the officers that come in to work every day, uphold the law, and get few complaints that are unfounded in the first place.
jhood001
09-01-2017, 22:49
Implied consent is that you agree to give blood or breath upon probable cause by driving motor vehicle..
I have mad respect for you and what you do. I hope you know that. But I don't recall ever seeing anything that implies that any entity has rights to the only property I actually own in this life (my body) when I sign up for a driver's license.
I'd love to see the contract that lays that out.
The word 'implied' in itself means that something isn't explicit.
I don't have time for 'implied' in this life. I want to know the rules and I want to follow them. I don't want to be shaghai'd by an entity that has more legal power (MONEY) than I do.
Get a fucking warrant if the evidence is so overwhelming.
BushMasterBoy
09-01-2017, 22:51
But, to really be well versed in the law, don't you have to have a "law degree" ? Don't all licensed lawyers have to have a college degree from a law school and then pass a state bar exam? In other words, you don't have a law degree and a license to practice law, you are basically a soldier following orders! Which is what this cop was doing. And the department that he works for has already admitted they are taken action to make changes this doesn't happen again.
Had she done the blood draw she could potentially been in violation of HIPPA and possibly lost her license over it. As this was the victim in a head on crash where the other person was being chased by the police...it is doubtful there was any probable cause to even think he might have been on drugs or alcohol. He was in his own lane and the person being chased swerved into oncoming traffic.
Video of the accident that spawned this on July 26th;
http://youtu.be/o2iykqRxlj4
Logan police on Thursday identified a man who was killed in a head-on crash that occurred during a high-speed chase near Sardine Canyon in Cache County.
A Utah Highway Patrol trooper had started chasing 26-year-old Marcos Torres, of Brigham City, at 2 p.m. on Wednesday after several people called 911 to report reckless and erratic driving, according to Logan Police Chief Gary Jensen, whose department was investigating the crash. Torres, driving a pickup truck, was driving south when he veered into oncoming traffic at 6200 South on U.S. Route 89 in Wellsville and crashed into a northbound semitruck, Jensen said.
The crash caused "an explosion and immediate fire," according to Logan police.
The individual that the police wanted to do the illegal blood draw on was driving the big rig that gets hit head-on by the fleeing perp and is severely burned. He did nothing wrong, is not under arrest, is unconscious, and the police don't have a warrant.
KevDen2005
09-02-2017, 00:02
But, to really be well versed in the law, don't you have to have a "law degree" ? Don't all licensed lawyers have to have a college degree from a law school and then pass a state bar exam? In other words, you don't have a law degree and a license to practice law, you are basically a soldier following orders! Which is what this cop was doing. And the department that he works for has already admitted they are taken action to make changes this doesn't happen again.
Completely false and misguided. Cops are not soldiers just taking orders. In some cases bad orders are given by supervision and it appears that is being worked on. I make correct legal decisions daily without consulting with an attorney based on the law. I have won numerous cases in court on my decisions because other lawyers have no idea what they are talking about. I have testified on multiple occasions as an expert witness and given guidance to the prosecution on questioning. Why? Because I happen to also understand the law and have been given the ability to enforce it appropriately.
Just like lawyers that practice in specific fields there are cops that do the same thing. I my assumption, and it is only that, the reason for the blood test may be for CDL purposes if they don't suspect DUI. I don't do Commercial Motor Vehicle enforcement so I am only making an assumption on that.
KevDen2005
09-02-2017, 00:16
I have mad respect for you and what you do. I hope you know that. But I don't recall ever seeing anything that implies that any entity has rights to the only property I actually own in this life (my body) when I sign up for a driver's license.
I'd love to see the contract that lays that out.
The word 'implied' in itself means that something isn't explicit.
I don't have time for 'implied' in this life. I want to know the rules and I want to follow them. I don't want to be shaghai'd by an entity that has more legal power (MONEY) than I do.
Get a fucking warrant if the evidence is so overwhelming.
I know that you do, we have talked on multiple occasions. And you know the ones that know me personally know that I don't just defend cops because they're cops. Ultimately, the nurse may have just gone with what the cop was doing an then sue him later. Fighting is lose lose. At the end of the day this officer and his department made my job tomorrow even harder, which pisses me off.
You're right, your blood is yours and it may need a warrant. However under exigent circumstances a blood draw may be taken without a warrant, this would be for situations like vehicular homicide, but will only work for the first blood draw if a warrant could not have been obtained before that. The following blood draws will require a warrant no matter what. Some reasons why this is the case is that we have a limited number of minutes from the time a motor vehicle is operated to getting a blood draw for certain portions of the investigation. Things like medical procedure and medications the hospital gives you can also alter blood results again possibly giving exigency (exigent blood draws are rare). And in these cases we may need to show the courts that a warrant was being worked on and attempting to be obtained prior to the first blood draw. This shows the courts we aren't just getting blood draws without warrants.
Colorado CRS 42-4-1301.1 Exressed Consent - A person who drives a motor vehicle, anywhere, shall have been deemed to have given their consent to this section. Which allows me to demand a blood or breath sample (upon probable cause). Now if you choose to deny me taking one I'm not gonna fight you for it, I'm not gonna end up in the news for it, and there will be no case law for it. I will sleep all the same when I keep the driver's license for the person refusing. That person will be in jail and have to bond out and I will be at home relaxing. I'm not gonna stress over it.
The purpose of this is to deter drivers from being intoxicated and impaired from drugs or alcohol, or both on the public roadway. You and I both have a right to drive without some asshat running into us because of impairment. I have seen too much blood smeared on the roadway to not take this seriously. Everytime you see a cross on some street corner I almost guarantee that there is a high likelihood that alcohol or drugs were a cause of that crash.
I know someone else posted something about making it harder and harder to defend cops from BLM. But this was one circumstance. And it is most likely going to get resolved. Despite what people think about this video or cops, the vast majority are helping you not hurting you. Additionally, if you are a law abiding citizen, the likelihood of seeing the police for anything other than something traffic related is extremely slim, so people never really get a chance to know what goes on daily behind the wheel of a patrol car. Only what TV tells them and their experiences getting a ticket.
BushMasterBoy
09-02-2017, 00:29
Absolutely not true. The profession has a terrible public relations problem! The arrest was unlawful! Let me know when you pass the state bar exam, and I will buy your family dinner @ The Broadmoor!
Completely false and misguided. Cops are not soldiers just taking orders. In some cases bad orders are given by supervision and it appears that is being worked on. I make correct legal decisions daily without consulting with an attorney based on the law. I have won numerous cases in court on my decisions because other lawyers have no idea what they are talking about. I have testified on multiple occasions as an expert witness and given guidance to the prosecution on questioning. Why? Because I happen to also understand the law and have been given the ability to enforce it appropriately.
Just like lawyers that practice in specific fields there are cops that do the same thing. I my assumption, and it is only that, the reason for the blood test may be for CDL purposes if they don't suspect DUI. I don't do Commercial Motor Vehicle enforcement so I am only making an assumption on that.
KevDen2005
09-02-2017, 00:31
Absolutely not true. The profession has a terrible public relations problem! The arrest was unlawful! Let me know when you pass the state bar exam, and I will buy your family dinner @ The Broadmoor!
I'm not sitting here defending the arrest.
I'm sorry the police have upset you in life.
But you win because you chose such a large font. I can't even argue it.
But you're wrong.
Fentonite
09-02-2017, 00:59
Regardless of whether or not the officer had a right to obtain a blood sample from the driver, he did not have a right to arrest the nurse. I don't know the laws of the state where that occurred, but I doubt there is a law that compels a nurse to draw blood, against her will, in any circumstance, with recourse of criminal charges. That's just ridiculous. I've been on both sides of this, previously as an LEO, and now practicing medicine in the ER of a trauma center. Sure, some hospitals will contract with an agency to do their legal blood draws, but that's a civil contract. The arrest was absolutely wrongful. I've seen it many times - an otherwise well-intending LEO gets embarrassed or frustrated, and exercises authority he doesn't have. Usually, ER staff and LEO's work much better together, as they both know that they rely on the other in potentially life-ending (and life-saving) situations. Unfortunately, this LEO was in the wrong, and really showed his ass. Kudos to the nurse, a real pro.
In spite of the officer's poor decisions/actions, for which he absolutely should be held accountable, I expect that he would run towards gunfire (or a flood or burning building, etc etc) to protect those he could. One stupid action doesn't necessarily define the man, at least not completely.
BPTactical
09-02-2017, 06:11
A post accident drug test is MANDATORY for a CDL licensee when:
A Fatality is involved even if the CDL driver is not cited.
Bodily Injury is involved IF the CDL driver is cited.
A vehicle is towed from the scene IF the CDL driver is cited.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/drug-alcohol-testing/what-tests-are-required-and-when-does-testing-occur
The drug test is to be performed by the CDL holders EMPLOYER, not law enforcement. Now whether or not an employer can direct law enforcement to collect the testing sample I am not sure of.
Regardless, the cop, his supervision and any other party who obstructed this nurse from:
A - protecting the patients rights
B - following her employers policies and protocols
C - performing her duties within the scope of her position
....needs to be standing in an unemployment line.
Especially the "arresting" officer, Payne. He needs the "Rapsheet Rhonda Hilti" treatment.
Prick.
Bailey Guns
09-02-2017, 06:55
Absolutely not true. The profession has a terrible public relations problem! The arrest was unlawful! Let me know when you pass the state bar exam, and I will buy your family dinner @ The Broadmoor!
And people wonder why some cops appear to have a problem with the public. This is the reason. ^^
While I agree the police have a PR problem I don't agree that blame for that rests solely with the police. We get our news from a lying, agenda-driven media (not in this particular case...in general) that almost never has the best interests of the police in mind. Every single time a cop does something stupid or wrong, such as in this case, his/her actions are instantly broadcast for the world to see and to immediately pass judgment upon. The general public ALWAYS feels compelled to comment on police policies and procedures as though they were experts, even though they generally have no training or experience in police policies and procedures. I can think of no other profession where this is the case...at least to the degree that's it done with the police.
The officer here made a mistake. A big one. And he compounded his mistake with some pretty piss poor behavior. It sounds like he's gonna pay dearly for that mistake. And he should. But should his entire life and character be judged on this one instance? I don't know. He could be a total douchebag. Or he could have a history of being a great police officer and person. I don't think anyone here knows.
All I can say is based on what I've read from some posting here I'd likely rather have that officer as a friend than some here. I mean, since we're gonna base judgments on people we don't even know based on isolated incidents and all that I feel pretty comfortable saying that. Everyone does something stupid at one time or another. But some make stupid a lifestyle.
Aloha_Shooter
09-02-2017, 07:11
Absolutely not true. The profession has a terrible public relations problem! The arrest was unlawful! Let me know when you pass the state bar exam, and I will buy your family dinner @ The Broadmoor!
The profession DOES have a public relations problem as is evident from the number of otherwise-reasonable people who have bought into BLM's BS but that has nothing to do with the facts of this case or your blatant anti-LE bias. It's pretty clear you would be vehemently anti-LE even if they had GREAT PR.
This particular cop (and perhaps his immediate leadership) made a bad call but KevDen, BP and others have quite calmly and rationally explained why and when implied consent and exigent circumstances come into play. Making your font bigger isn't going to change the law or make you right.
JohnnyEgo
09-02-2017, 07:35
But you win because you chose such a large font. I can't even argue it.
Do you even Font, Bro?
In all seriousness, this is the best line I have read all week. I am not a fan of the concept of the 'Like' button, but I would press one for this post.
Bailey Guns
09-02-2017, 07:40
www.idahoguntalk.com
Sorry you're so easily triggered.
Don't use your catchphrases on me. Just opening a door.
A post accident drug test is MANDATORY for a CDL licensee when:
A Fatality is involved even if the CDL driver is not cited.
Bodily Injury is involved IF the CDL driver is cited.
A vehicle is towed from the scene IF the CDL driver is cited.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/drug-alcohol-testing/what-tests-are-required-and-when-does-testing-occur
The drug test is to be performed by the CDL holders EMPLOYER, not law enforcement. Now whether or not an employer can direct law enforcement to collect the testing sample I am not sure of.
Regardless, the cop, his supervision and any other party who obstructed this nurse from:
A - protecting the patients rights
B - following her employers policies and protocols
C - performing her duties within the scope of her position
....needs to be standing in an unemployment line.
Especially the "arresting" officer, Payne. He needs the "Rapsheet Rhonda Hilti" treatment.
Prick.
Based on the statutes linked on the FMCSA site about testing, all scenarios involve consent by the license holder. The license holder can refuse;
Your refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test is generally equivalent to testing positive to a drug or alcohol test. You must immediately be removed from performing safety-sensitive functions (i.e., driving CMVs) until successful completion of the return-to-duty process with a DOT-qualified substance abuse professional.
If there was a disagreement about the collection requirements, the issue should have been escalated within the department to be addressed by the legal departments of both the hospital and department. Letting your emotions take over and muscling a nurse into an arrest situation, was entirely the wrong answer. The officer stated she was under arrest, but why was she never mirandized?
If a fellow officer is getting emotionally involved and making a bad move, wouldn't it be a good idea for another officer to step in defuse the situation? Maybe have the officer take a breather while someone else takes over? There were other officers on scene and you could tell at least one of them felt the situation was taking a bad turn, but no cooler head stepped in to de-escalate the situation.
ChadAmberg
09-02-2017, 08:12
If there was a disagreement about the collection requirements, the issue should have been escalated within the department to be addressed by the legal departments of both the hospital and department. Letting your emotions take over and muscling a nurse into an arrest situation, was entirely the wrong answer. The officer stated she was under arrest, but why was she never mirandized?
She was not going to be questioned, no need for Miranda warnings.
I am not a fan of the concept of the 'Like' button
Dislike. [fail]
She was not going to be questioned, no need for Miranda warnings.
Oh, so just contempt of cop, no need to be advised of her rights.
I ran into a retire police commander a while back, he is OLD. I recalled my interactions with him from a long time ago when I was lots younger. He is such a level headed, sensible person that I compare him to Andy Griffith style. My dealings with him were always like dealing with an old School principle. This is how I wish law enforcement still worked. My fear is law enforcement is going to follow the politics path and scare away most of the good people because it's not worth the trouble. Then only the sociopaths or ego maniacs will be left, much like most politicians.
KevDen2005
09-02-2017, 09:34
I ran into a retire police commander a while back, he is OLD. I recalled my interactions with him from a long time ago when I was lots younger. He is such a level headed, sensible person that I compare him to Andy Griffith style. My dealings with him were always like dealing with an old School principle. This is how I wish law enforcement still worked. My fear is law enforcement is going to follow the politics path and scare away most of the good people because it's not worth the trouble. Then only the sociopaths or ego maniacs will be left, much like most politicians.
This is not the case though. We don't have a PR problem as someone pointed out we have a media problem. And partially you are right, there are tons of people that are good cops that don't want to be cops because they are tired of a lot of the fallout from the bad media. And good people who don't even want to apply. I can tell you over and over again how many times are background investigators rule out the wrong people. But the one officer you see in a video is every LEO nationwide. BY a long shot.
KevDen2005
09-02-2017, 09:50
Yeah, that is a catch 22. The media perception is a real problem. E.g. the "same cloth" arguments. I don't have a solution to the two edged blade.
Without the media - the troublemakers are generally protected by the existing system in many departments, and it can get quite bad.
With the media - a certain part of our population (generally the same one that flings the word "racism" at every turn) levies a bias upon an entire class of people because of the actions of one or two. Ironic.
Many fundamental problems with our country. I wish the justice system was constructed in an entirely different fashion from our foundation - it's not the LEO's fault. There is a real perception of unfair treatment in the justice system, which has citizens casting blame upon innocent parties (Good LEO) - if they would ever fix the underlying judicial system (dating from the middle ages) it would help. It'll never happen, however.
Honestly I blame police administrators a lot. There seem to be a lot that have forgotten law, didn't realize law changed, or think they can do whatever they want because of their position. Countless times I have been questioned because of a decision a commander made or higher. Additionally countless times I have seen commanders go out in public and either give terrible information to the public or completely sell out their officers when their officers were 100 percent right, only because the person made an unfounded complaint. These administrators go after the officers that don't make a stink. The ones that come to work everyday without issues and don't complain about work and do what they are supposed to do. They are easier targets than the guys that have constant issues. I've seen this in a multitude of police departments and I also have seen some change where some very well educated leaders are getting promoted which inspires me.
I think if we promoted real leaders who were educated we would see a lot less issues as well. Part of it is when a police department just chooses "yes men" or the person that was there the longest to promote.
BladesNBarrels
09-02-2017, 09:56
........... more viciousness than a pit-bull after a propane salesman. ......
Dang, what does the pit-bull have against propane salesmen??
[Dunno]
Bailey Guns
09-02-2017, 09:57
For each case in the news, there's an unknown multiple that do not get the attention and the shitbags remain employed.
And for each case in the news there's hundreds of thousands of good deeds that go unrecognized every single day because they're just like anyone else. Good people doing their jobs. No one here is making an excuse for this guy in case you haven't noticed. Some are just trying to be reasonable without jumping on the "he's a shitbag" bandwagon. That's obviously too much to ask of a lot of people.
Bailey Guns
09-02-2017, 10:05
Honestly I blame police administrators a lot.
Exactly why I left the profession after 15 years. Bureaucrats and administrators. Patting you on the back with one hand while stabbing you in the back with the other. That and I got tired of being everything but a cop.
And maybe it's just me, but in my experience a "shitbag" officer's worst enemies were other officers. The "shitbags" weren't always recognized or acknowledged by the higher-ups for what they were, but they certainly were by their peers. And their peers usually avoided them like the plague. It was like that when I worked at the largest SO in the state and when I worked for a med-small metro-area dept.
BladesNBarrels
09-02-2017, 10:13
Dang, what does the pit-bull have against propane salesmen??
[Dunno]
My mistake! I had not looked through all the postings.
What a story!
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/164649-I-Survived-a-Pit-Bull-Attack-Today
hurley842002
09-02-2017, 10:18
And maybe it's just me, but in my experience a "shitbag" officer's worst enemies were other officers in my experience. The "shitbags" weren't always recognized or acknowledged by the higher-ups for what they were, but they certainly were by their peers. And their peers usually avoided them like the plague. It was like that when I worked at the largest SO in the state and when I worked for a med-small metro-area dept.
Not just you, but don't let that get in the way of the conspiracy theory folks, who think "brothers in blue" extends to criminal and/or moral/ethical issues.
I will stick to my belief that lawyers cause most of the problems. Lawyers who make laws (legislators and judges) are the self licking ice cream. Whether intentional or not, they have produced and maintain a system that promotes a monopoly controlling greater portions of our lives.
Three years of law school and there isn't a single profession or agency they can't be in charge of. How does that happen?
Trump's biggest advantage over Hillary? He employs lawyers but isn't one himself. She, on the other hand is the epitome of the self serving lawyer.
For the two or three lawyers I've met over the years who were honest and have integrity, I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings.
KevDen2005
09-02-2017, 11:04
I will stick to my belief that lawyers cause most of the problems. Lawyers who make laws (legislators and judges) are the self licking ice cream. Whether intentional or not, they have produced and maintain a system that promotes a monopoly controlling greater portions of our lives.
Three years of law school and there isn't a single profession or agency they can't be in charge of. How does that happen?
Trump's biggest advantage over Hillary? He employs lawyers but isn't one himself. She, on the other hand is the epitome of the self serving lawyer.
For the two or three lawyers I've met over the years who were honest and have integrity, I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings.
Pretty much agree to that. I feel like I have met quite a few lawyers that were good, but some of the ones recently I just can't believe. I want to ask them straight out, "Does your client know you're just wasting their money?"
One of the biggest problems with enforcement in this country - and I'm not talking just LEO - is the focus is on trying to erode rights, e.g. finding, pushing, and testing loopholes; pushing for precedence to expand searches, arrests, etc. Rights are viewed as a nuisance that keeps them from catching "bad guys".
The focus should be on respecting rights and giving them a wide berth. But, this isn't a free country. As we go on, we shit all over our freedoms and chain them with technicalities. E.g. 5th amendment? Well, now you have to explicitly say you are invoking the fifth amendment with specific language because they can use silence against you in court. 11th Amendment? Now protects your state against you. I can go on... and on. Over a million pages of prescience fundamentally rewriting our laws, rights, and regulations; all by appointed justices legislating from the bench. Not altogether different from the middle ages.
[snip]
+1,000
I few this issue the same way as civil forfeiture. It may have been well intentioned but is a clear violation of our civil liberties and, IMHO, isn't even necessary to "catch bad guys" because we have a process.
Investigate (PC, arrest, warrants, etc), charge, try, convict, sentence. Violent that process and everyone loses because people lose faith in LE/courts.
This process and our rights exist for a reason and I can't believe even the LEOs that pushing the line want to live in the world they are creating.
Imagine if that nurse is your daughter someday... Told she can lose her job for not following hospital procedure, follows procedure, and then Det. Dipshit assaults her for doing her job and threatens to destroy her life.
A blood draw can be taken if the patient is unconscious in most states for DUI. Implied consent is that you agree to give blood or breath upon probable cause by driving motor vehicle. Blood can also be drawn under exigent circumstance rules, similar to drugs, we realize the evidence can be destroyed quickly. There has been several supreme court cases on the matter regarding implied consent as well as what is referred to as "felony blood draw" or "forcible blood draw." In many regards it would determine what judicial district you're in on those departments operate with implied consent and felony blood draws.
I appreciate your comments in this thread and your perspective.
What is the time cost of obtaining an electronic warrant?
I think this case even more troubling because the truck driver in question wasn't at fault. SLPD was chasing the suspect who crossed the line and hit the truck (very obvious in the video posted elsewhere). So they knew at the time there was no PC for any kind of charges against the truck driver. He was a victim in every since of the word, just doing his job.
Heck, even if he came back with .07 BAC how do you win a conviction when it was SLPD's pursuit?
Again, a pointless conflict.
As for implied consent in general, I could make the same statements about nearly anything. The value in having this absolutely power to search/seize could apply to many things. How about a law that says anyone who uses a smartphone consents to a search of that device by LE at any time? Would significantly cut down on illicit drugs, child porn, and gang activity.
But at what cost? I consent to aiding the prosecution against me before even committing a crime?
You basically have no rights with such "laws" and the broad application no longer becomes about crime fighting because there aren't that many criminals to justify a police state.
ETA: Unless the draw is about SLPD trying to find some fault with the victim to limit their liability from the pursuit. In which case it's even more evil.
OtterbatHellcat
09-02-2017, 11:53
Dislike. [fail]
Holy lmao.
+1,000
I few this issue the same way as civil forfeiture. It may have been well intentioned but is a clear violation of our civil liberties and, IMHO, isn't even necessary to "catch bad guys" because we have a process.
Investigate (PC, arrest, warrants, etc), charge, try, convict, sentence. Violent that process and everyone loses because people lose faith in LE/courts.
This process and our rights exist for a reason and I can't believe even the LEOs that pushing the line want to live in the world they are creating.
Imagine if that nurse is your daughter someday... Told she can lose her job for not following hospital procedure, follows procedure, and then Det. Dipshit assaults her for doing her job and threatens to destroy her life.
I appreciate your comments in this thread and your perspective.
What is the time cost of obtaining an electronic warrant?
I think this case even more troubling because the truck driver in question wasn't at fault. SLPD was chasing the suspect who crossed the line and hit the truck (very obvious in the video posted elsewhere). So they knew at the time there was no PC for any kind of charges against the truck driver. He was a victim in every since of the word, just doing his job.
Heck, even if he came back with .07 BAC how do you win a conviction when it was SLPD's pursuit?
Again, a pointless conflict.
As for implied consent in general, I could make the same statements about nearly anything. The value in having this absolutely power to search/seize could apply to many things. How about a law that says anyone who uses a smartphone consents to a search of that device by LE at any time? Would significantly cut down on illicit drugs, child porn, and gang activity.
But at what cost? I consent to aiding the prosecution against me before even committing a crime?
You basically have no rights with such "laws" and the broad application no longer becomes about crime fighting because there aren't that many criminals to justify a police state.
ETA: Unless the draw is about SLPD trying to find some fault with the victim to limit their liability from the pursuit. In which case it's even more evil.
From what I've read thus far, the person responsible for the accident is dead. When the police activate their emergency equipment to effect a traffic stop, driver's are required to stop. To flee is taking responsibility for the foreseeable consequences. Yes, departments can choose to discontinue a chase or alter the tactics of pursuit, but ultimately, the person fleeing is responsible for the mayhem they cause.
I seriously doubt the blood draw was to limit liability in this case as the police did not have any liability until the Detective attempted to make a false arrest based on non-existent charges.
It would be interesting to see what would have happened if representatives from the semi-driver's company had come to the hospital to have blood drawn rather than the police. Administrative search based on a government regulation? If the results of this type of blood draw show that the driver was guilty of a criminal violation, the water can get muddy pretty quickly. I am not a fan of the "inevitable discovery" doctrine, but have seen it used to put away guilty people which is hard to argue against. This is all hypothetical, as the nurse read the policy: consent, arrest, warrant. None of those three things was present so the option was to wait for one, make one, or go get one. It will be interesting to see how long this story will linger and what effect the story will have on the reviews/investigation. Justice is a slow boat with lots of leaks. Sometimes it just doesn't arrive in this life time.
KevDen2005
09-02-2017, 15:23
I appreciate your comments in this thread and your perspective.
What is the time cost of obtaining an electronic warrant?
I think this case even more troubling because the truck driver in question wasn't at fault. SLPD was chasing the suspect who crossed the line and hit the truck (very obvious in the video posted elsewhere). So they knew at the time there was no PC for any kind of charges against the truck driver. He was a victim in every since of the word, just doing his job.
Heck, even if he came back with .07 BAC how do you win a conviction when it was SLPD's pursuit?
Again, a pointless conflict.
As for implied consent in general, I could make the same statements about nearly anything. The value in having this absolutely power to search/seize could apply to many things. How about a law that says anyone who uses a smartphone consents to a search of that device by LE at any time? Would significantly cut down on illicit drugs, child porn, and gang activity.
But at what cost? I consent to aiding the prosecution against me before even committing a crime?
You basically have no rights with such "laws" and the broad application no longer becomes about crime fighting because there aren't that many criminals to justify a police state.
ETA: Unless the draw is about SLPD trying to find some fault with the victim to limit their liability from the pursuit. In which case it's even more evil.
Warrants aren't fully electronic. It depends on time of day. Not everyone has access to system write warrants. The traffic detective will most likely be the one doing it. A lot of times starting it at home in the middle of the night. It involves waking that person up, filling them in, getting the paperwork started, contacting the DA (waking them up), and then a judge. This process can be very short if all the pieces work correctly or up to a couple hours if there are snags every step of the way.
I have no idea why the officer wants a blood draw on the truck driver. But it is not entirely uncommon for the "victim" in a car accident being intoxicated and shouldn't be driving. What it comes down to would be, did law enforcement have a legal reason to contact the victim vehicle? Well if it was a welfare check or the other vehicle was involved in a car accident it would be entirely plausible that an LEO would contact them. If at that point the driver is DUI and that LEO has supporting evidence of that (even without driving actions and without roadside maneuvers) that person may be charged with DUI. That would also be separate than the chase or other portion of the MV accident, etc. I want to make it clear that I am not assuming that's the case for the truck driver. I don't know what the issue is. I am using it as a hypothetical. A DUI can be charged without other driving action, such as the victim vehicle of car accident.
Now with your comment about blood, if there is evidence in there (alcohol or drugs) that can easily be destroyed (time, fluids, other drugs, etc) there are exigent circumstance rules. If a person commits a crime, law enforcement has abilities to gain that evidence against that person. As I mentioned before, by failing to cooperate in the test will be automatic revocation of a license. By merely operating a motor vehicle, consent has already been given. That's because driving is extremely dangerous to every person in public. There are procedures for the smart phone scenario you mentioned which include a warrant. But there is generally a lot more time to play that game.
Now with your comment about blood, if there is evidence in there (alcohol or drugs) that can easily be destroyed (time, fluids, other drugs, etc) there are exigent circumstance rules. If a person commits a crime, law enforcement has abilities to gain that evidence against that person. As I mentioned before, by failing to cooperate in the test will be automatic revocation of a license. By merely operating a motor vehicle, consent has already been given. That's because driving is extremely dangerous to every person in public. There are procedures for the smart phone scenario you mentioned which include a warrant. But there is generally a lot more time to play that game.
Fine, but in this case, none of this applies. The individual in question was not under arrest, could not give consent, nor was there a warrant.
As with many of these types of threads, I begin with a certain point of view, then gain perspective by the additional information, experience, and view points of others.
I think the general consensus is that the cop was in the wrong, or at least could have handled the situation differently.
Though feelings are strong, this thread hasn't turned into a pie fight, which is nice.
Two Officers Put on Leave After Utah Nurse Confrontation (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/two-officers-put-on-leave-after-utah-nurse-confrontation/ar-AAr7SUC)
Two Salt Lake City police officers have been placed on paid administrative leave after a shocking video of a nurse's arrest sparked nationwide outrage.
The Salt Lake City police department announced on Friday that it had put Detective Jeff Payne, the officer who arrested Alex Wubbels, plus a second employee, on leave "pending the results of an investigation." The second employee was not identified, but police spokeswoman Christina Judd confirmed to NBC News on Saturday that he was also a police officer.
OtterbatHellcat
09-02-2017, 21:38
As with many of these types of threads, I begin with a certain point of view, then gain perspective by the additional information, experience, and view points of others.
That happens to myself as well. I think it's a good thing.
DavieD55
09-03-2017, 00:40
One of the biggest problems with enforcement in this country - and I'm not talking just LEO - is the focus is on trying to erode rights, e.g. finding, pushing, and testing loopholes; pushing for precedence to expand searches, arrests, etc. Rights are viewed as a nuisance that keeps them from catching "bad guys".
The focus should be on respecting rights and giving them a wide berth. But, this isn't a free country. As we go on, we shit all over our freedoms and chain them with technicalities. E.g. 5th amendment? Well, now you have to explicitly say you are invoking the fifth amendment with specific language because they can use silence against you in court. 11th Amendment? Now protects your state against you. I can go on... and on. Over a million pages of prescience fundamentally rewriting our laws, rights, and regulations; all by appointed justices legislating from the bench. Not altogether different from the middle ages.
250,000 pages between U.S.C. and F.C.R. people. Over 10,000 criminal offenses on the federal level alone. If you want to know what you can be prosecuted for in this lifetime, it's impossible to know - even the gov't couldn't make a list after a two year effort. You would have to read 1.25 million pages; all of the religious texts in the world combined are less than 30,000. Whatever you are doing, you are committing a prosecutable offense right now. Beyond that, F.C.R. is so convoluted that as long as you have good legal counsel you can generally find a regulation to support any position you want to take. Conversely, if a corrupt "enforcer" has an issue with you, they can take you down. Right now. There is always something to justify an arrest. (PS: This woman's arrest is actually justified, believe it or not, because precedence has established LEO can justify an arrest after the fact by alleging any violation, no matter how insignificant. Did she park more than six inches away from the curb outside? there you go).
To those that want to befriend this officer or explain his actions (not talking about Ken who tries to explain aspects of e.g. C.R.S.), YOU ARE A HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Maybe more so than this officer. "He would run towards gunfire" "One occurrence doesn't..." "I would rather befriend him". Your premises are based on nothing other than his uniform, and your premise is that a uniform makes him a good person. You have no idea HOW FUCKED our judicial system is. There is not ANY room for people who abuse their power as an enforcer. Not even once. They are already protected by the system, unions, cronyism, coworkers, preferential treatment, etc. They don't need you too.
Quite obviously this man is facing a shitstorm thanks largely to the internet. However, if it wasn't for that, he most likely wouldn't even face a reprimand and the department would cover for him especially since she will not be suing. The only reason for any consequence is because people are watching. Some departments - get so bad (see e.g. NOAA) that a couple bad apple corrupts the entire tree - and they take down hundreds of innocent people, some of them fatally (suicides, usually). Unless you have ever had to pull back the curtain, you don't have much of a place to speak. When the media isn't watching, the cronyism often goes so far as the top brass of the department. Supervisors will even shred documents while under congressional investigation to protect their bro's. And their chief will cover for them, "transferring" them with a promotion when people complain. My examples are real, by the way. There are so many layers of enforcement in this country, people have no idea. Unless the public notices, many departments have no real ramifications for these type of actions - and as somewhat noted earlier in the thread, "good" officers turning on "bad" generally backfires on the "good" officer.
The only thing making these people accountable is often the attention. For each case in the news, there's an unknown multiple that do not get the attention and the shitbags remain employed.
Money and power and power and money.
KevDen2005
09-03-2017, 03:07
Fine, but in this case, none of this applies. The individual in question was not under arrest, could not give consent, nor was there a warrant.
I realize that. I am merely answering the question and pointed out several times that I'm not sure why there was an issue with the truck driver. I think I went out of my way to talk about and point out hypotheticals just to answer the question.
A Utah nurse’s violent arrest puts patient-consent law — and police conduct — in the spotlight (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-utah-nurse’s-violent-arrest-puts-patient-consent-law-—-and-police-conduct-—-in-the-spotlight/ar-AArbjoC)
A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. Payne’s lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.
I think we now know who the 2 suspended officers we're.
Turns out nurse Wubbels was protecting the rights of a police officer.
Since the footage was made public, the unconscious patient has been identified as William Gray, a reserve officer with the Rigby Police Department in Idaho who is a full-time truck driver. That department said in a statement that it had not been aware of the incident until video of Wubbels’s arrest went viral, and it praised the nurse for her actions.
“The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act,” the department said. “It is important to remember that Officer Gray is the victim in this horrible event, and that at no time was he under any suspicion of wrongdoing.”
spqrzilla
09-03-2017, 20:52
I missed the part where an attorney told that police officer to illegally obtain a blood sample, and to arrest any nurse who tried to prevent him from so illegally treating an unconscious accident victim. Please point it out for me.
Nobody is suggesting that an attorney told the police officer to illegally obtain a blood sample. I believe it has now been well established that his Lieutenant told him to, and in what can only be described as a cringe-worthy decision to continue some very bad behavior, this chain of events has been preserved for all the world of armchair critics to be distracted and to weigh in- despite not having all of the facts at ther disposal. There are people on here that have special knowledge that the rest of us don't. They are offering information that the media has not.
-------
The fact that those of you are trying to pick a fight with the people introducing more information, rather than applying this new knowledge to the dribs and drabs offered by the media, makes me wonder about what or who you're really angry at.
I missed the part where an attorney told that police officer to illegally obtain a blood sample, and to arrest any nurse who tried to prevent him from so illegally treating an unconscious accident victim. Please point it out for me.
Lawyers don't tell people what to do. The most common response you get from lawyers is; "It depends" and "No." When they want to tell people what to do, they get elected to public office and make laws that benefit them and their profession. Regardless of what side of an issue there are sure to be attorneys on every side billing for their time. You didn't miss where an attorney told that police officer to illegally obtain a blood sample, but I guarantee that several lawyers will make money from this and every other tragedy like it. The profession that parses words so finely that "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
People make mistakes. Lawyers make a living off of those mistakes.
Just my opinion.
Worst part is , I bet that something similar is happening or will happen near future.
Look at the priest child molester issues. Even with national/global attention, it is still hapenning...
Sad.
BladesNBarrels
09-04-2017, 09:00
I missed the part where an attorney told that police officer to illegally obtain a blood sample, and to arrest any nurse who tried to prevent him from so illegally treating an unconscious accident victim. Please point it out for me.
I missed it too!
71867
Worst part is , I bet that something similar is happening or will happen near future.
Look at the priest child molester issues. Even with national/global attention, it is still hapenning...
Sad.
Worst part is , I bet that something similar is happening or will happen near future.
Look at the priest child molester issues. Even with national/global attention, it is still hapenning...
Sad.
Positions of power over others attract two types of people:
Those who truly desire to serve others and those who desire to wield power over others (sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, etc.).
Police, military, clergy, and teachers are prime position targets of predators -- not only sexual, but in general. In short, there is NO WAY to stop it amongst any particular milieu. mankind is fallen, despite the social engineering Stuart Smalley types' mantra of "mankind is good". We're not. We suck.
I can think of at least 3 NCO's I had who were frankly just batshit crazy. They liked killing, mutilation of bodies, and combat served as a convenient outlet for their desire to hurt others and wield an ultimate power over people. I'm sure any cop on here, who is honest with himself, can think of at least one former or current cop in their dept. who ticks the boxes of being in a category which is predatory (psychopath, sociopath, narcissist).
And while I hesitate to make it seem as if I cast off the enormity of the scandal of predatory priests, which I don't, there is actually at least as much of an issue in the Protestant milieu, other religions, and even amongst persons who are not in a position of religious authority. FWIW, I hold to the same thing I told a priest when I was converting to Catholicism: "Anyone caught hurting a child should have their head cut off with a rusty spoon."
http://blogs.denverpost.com/hark/2010/05/25/scandal-creates-contempt-for-catholic-clergy/39/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/24/sexual-abuse-minors-in-protestant-churches.html
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-10/evangelicals-worse-catholics-sexual-abuse
OtterbatHellcat
09-04-2017, 17:22
Positions of power over others attract two types of people:
Those who truly desire to serve others and those who desire to wield power over others (sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, etc.).
Police, military, clergy, and teachers are prime position targets of predators -- not only sexual, but in general. In short, there is NO WAY to stop it amongst any particular milieu. mankind is fallen, despite the social engineering Stuart Smalley types' mantra of "mankind is good". We're not. We suck.
Wow...and yes.
spqrzilla
09-04-2017, 20:12
Nobody is suggesting that an attorney told the police officer to illegally obtain a blood sample. I believe it has now been well established that his Lieutenant told him to, and in what can only be described as a cringe-worthy decision to continue some very bad behavior, this chain of events has been preserved for all the world of armchair critics to be distracted and to weigh in- despite not having all of the facts at ther disposal. There are people on here that have special knowledge that the rest of us don't. They are offering information that the media has not.
-------
The fact that those of you are trying to pick a fight with the people introducing more information, rather than applying this new knowledge to the dribs and drabs offered by the media, makes me wonder about what or who you're really angry at.
I'm not angry with anyone. Just at the weird rants blaming attorneys for police misconduct. Because its simply nonsense.
I'm not angry with anyone. Just at the weird rants blaming attorneys for police misconduct. Because its simply nonsense.
I think you may be reading too much into it.
From what I've read thus far, the person responsible for the accident is dead. When the police activate their emergency equipment to effect a traffic stop, driver's are required to stop. To flee is taking responsibility for the foreseeable consequences. Yes, departments can choose to discontinue a chase or alter the tactics of pursuit, but ultimately, the person fleeing is responsible for the mayhem they cause.
I seriously doubt the blood draw was to limit liability in this case as the police did not have any liability until the Detective attempted to make a false arrest based on non-existent charges.
[snip]
The semi was coming the opposite way. I doubt he saw the chase/officer coming at their (opposing) high rate of speed. He could have pulled over and still got hit, although the decreased speed might have limited the injuries.
There have been lawsuits/settlements against LE/city/county/state for accidents occurring as the result of a pursuit. Even some with the suspect's own family as plaintiffs! So it would seem the civil court system disagrees with who you on who is responsible. I happen to agree with you and think "call off" policies only embolden criminals.
Warrants aren't fully electronic. It depends on time of day. Not everyone has access to system write warrants. The traffic detective will most likely be the one doing it. A lot of times starting it at home in the middle of the night. It involves waking that person up, filling them in, getting the paperwork started, contacting the DA (waking them up), and then a judge. This process can be very short if all the pieces work correctly or up to a couple hours if there are snags every step of the way.
I have no idea why the officer wants a blood draw on the truck driver. But it is not entirely uncommon for the "victim" in a car accident being intoxicated and shouldn't be driving. What it comes down to would be, did law enforcement have a legal reason to contact the victim vehicle? Well if it was a welfare check or the other vehicle was involved in a car accident it would be entirely plausible that an LEO would contact them. If at that point the driver is DUI and that LEO has supporting evidence of that (even without driving actions and without roadside maneuvers) that person may be charged with DUI. That would also be separate than the chase or other portion of the MV accident, etc. I want to make it clear that I am not assuming that's the case for the truck driver. I don't know what the issue is. I am using it as a hypothetical. A DUI can be charged without other driving action, such as the victim vehicle of car accident.
Now with your comment about blood, if there is evidence in there (alcohol or drugs) that can easily be destroyed (time, fluids, other drugs, etc) there are exigent circumstance rules. If a person commits a crime, law enforcement has abilities to gain that evidence against that person. As I mentioned before, by failing to cooperate in the test will be automatic revocation of a license. By merely operating a motor vehicle, consent has already been given. That's because driving is extremely dangerous to every person in public. There are procedures for the smart phone scenario you mentioned which include a warrant. But there is generally a lot more time to play that game.
So we're talking minutes to a few hours, good to know. I believe there is a formula they use for reconstruction BAC after a draw based on time duration, right? Unless LE starts carrying blood kits there is going to be some kind of delay.
In this case, being that the semi driver was already in a burn unit and under care, we have to assume some time has already gone by.
What's missing here is that LE contact you mention which would have lead to search with consent or an arrest (PC) which makes this fairly unique and I think has gotten under the skin of a lot of us. Obviously most of us have no problem with LE doing their job, seeing a potential crime, and investigating. That's the job and we're thankful for those who do it. The situation here is that the specific LEO tried to curb-stomp the rights of a person who they never suspected of committing a crime in the first place.
The implied consent in CO is to comply (which is an expected behavior/act) and I am aware of the penalties for failing to comply with roadside tests. So a driver is not inherently waiving his Fourth Amendment rights merely by driving in CO. He is agreeing to cooperate in the event he is suspected of DUI. He can refuse and, as you say, lose his license. The words comply and cooperate convey a choice which an unconscious person does not have. Even if you end up in the same place (DUI evidence > charge) the mechanics matter to the Fourth Amendment.
68Charger
09-05-2017, 07:45
I'm not angry with anyone. Just at the weird rants blaming attorneys for police misconduct. Because its simply nonsense.
I disagree that it's nonsense.
Those comments are not about lawyers being directly involved- it's based on frustration about the justice system being created BY lawyers, FOR lawyers.. practically everyone who has been involved with the justice system (on either side, besides the bench) has been at least somewhat disappointed by the process or outcome.
Why would the officer's be obtaining evidence (in this case, blood sample)?
it's to prove something one way or another to a lawyer (DA, judge, etc)... only if it went to a full jury trial could someone who is not part of the system get a say in whether that evidence is enough to convict (or acquit)
What's nonsense is that they would be gathering evidence to protect the truck driver... if they believe that, they have completely lost sight of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"
But given the fractures within our justice system, I can believe that.
spqrzilla
09-05-2017, 16:20
Right, police never committed misconduct until lawyers got involved. Got it.
68Charger
09-05-2017, 22:52
Right, police never committed misconduct until lawyers got involved. Got it.
Left, lawyers never did anything selfish until the police got involved. Got it.
Look, he can play your trolling game too!
theGinsue
09-05-2017, 22:59
Time to close this thread?
Great-Kazoo
09-05-2017, 23:08
Time to close this thread?
Past Time
BushMasterBoy
09-06-2017, 08:16
In other news...
http://wgntv.com/2017/09/06/5-denver-health-nurses-suspended-after-opening-body-bag-to-view-mans-genitals/
68Charger
09-06-2017, 08:22
In other news...
http://wgntv.com/2017/09/06/5-denver-health-nurses-suspended-after-opening-body-bag-to-view-mans-genitals/
Way to derail- now it can be about naughty nurses instead of cops vs lawyers! [ROFL2]
BladesNBarrels
09-06-2017, 08:47
Wasn't that a scene in the movie MASH?
BushMasterBoy
09-06-2017, 09:04
I wonder if it was a cop?
Great-Kazoo
09-06-2017, 09:07
Wasn't that a scene in the movie MASH?
IIRC, The suicide scene when everyone pays respects .
In other news...
http://wgntv.com/2017/09/06/5-denver-health-nurses-suspended-after-opening-body-bag-to-view-mans-genitals/
Maybe they were new nurses who had never seen a stiff before.
Bailey Guns
09-06-2017, 09:59
Maybe they were new nurses who had never seen a stiff before.
Being suspended was probably hard on them.
Maybe they were new nurses who had never seen a stiff before.
I think it happens quite often.
The only time I was under general I woke up in recovery in an, um, interesting state. Think morning time but assisted. I'm sure every nurse (all female) saw.
DavieD55
09-07-2017, 20:58
Spq: Attorneys are responsible for destroying all of our rights. On top of over 250k pages of federal laws and regulations, and a million plus pages of precidence. And yes, I said all, including the fourth and fifth subject here. I understand it is your profession. If you want to accuse me of being an uneducated heritic feel free. I studied law too, you know. Direct experience in every venue. Yet - you are right, I will never represent others, never pass the bar and I will never be an attorney; and I never want to. If you fail to see the profession of law and the jurists - cough - attorneys - as not being the deep underlying cause of many of these issues I don't know what to tell you. Attorneys invented the arbitrary loopholes to violate rights. If you stuck with plain text and treated it as treason, nobody would dare skirt the rules. But, it is hard to profit off of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXwGkAGlOs0
Wasn't that a scene in the movie MASH?
And a plot device in The World According to Garp...
Police officer who arrested Utah nurse fired from medic job (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-officer-who-arrested-utah-nurse-fired-from-medic-job/)
Utah asks FBI to investigate police in nurse's rough arrest (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/utah-asks-fbi-investigate-police-nurses-rough-arrest-49687024)
Logan police didn’t push for blood draw, chief tells CNN after SLC mayor rebukes handling of officer’s leave (http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/06/mayor-biskuski-police-officer-who-arrested-nurse-should-immediately-have-been-put-on-leave-br/)
The police officer who arrested a University Hospital nurse during a July 26 dispute over getting blood from a patient should immediately have been placed on administrative leave, according to Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski.
Instead, Salt Lake City police Detective Jeff Payne was allowed to stay on the job until Sept. 1, a day after the nurse’s attorney publicly released police body camera footage of the arrest. Another officer — believed to be Payne’s watch commander, Lt. James Tracy — was placed on leave the same day.
Maybe they thought this would blow over? Pretty crappy that they didn't respond until they were called out.
http://youtu.be/rXqP-jCiPgY
GilpinGuy
09-07-2017, 23:25
The police officer who arrested a University Hospital nurse during a July 26 dispute over getting blood from a patient should immediately have been placed on administrative leave, according to Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski.
Instead, Salt Lake City police Detective Jeff Payne was allowed to stay on the job until Sept. 1, a day after the nurse’s attorney publicly released police body camera footage of the arrest. Another officer — believed to be Payne’s watch commander, Lt. James Tracy — was placed on leave the same day.
[facepalm]I'm not even close to a cop-basher by any means, but when shit stinks I can smell it. This stinks bad. Situations like this are why so many distrust the police. Police yourselves before policing others.
[pileoshit]
Police officer who arrested Utah nurse fired from medic job (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-officer-who-arrested-utah-nurse-fired-from-medic-job/)
[snip]
Good!
Payne maintained in his report that he wanted the blood sample to protect the man rather than prosecute him.
:confused:
So the Det wanted to prove his innocence so he wouldn't be charged with a crime he was never suspected of committing?
I maintain in all likelihood a call was made to try and find something to reduce SLC's liability over the chase that ended very badly. If the burnt victim was under the influence that would do it. Sorry gents, there is just no other explanation for this behavior IMHO.
Sorry gents, there is just no other explanation for this behavior IMHO.
Sorry but you lack imagination. I can think of several explanations for this behavior; some good, some bad, some enigmatic. The problem with me coming up with explanations is they would just be my guess and that is just another way of saying speculation. IMO, it isn't useful to speculate and it is even less useful to limit speculation to what I can imagine. The world is much bigger than our imagination.
I will wait to see what the results of the reviews/investigation are before I register any more opinions about what did or didn't happen in this instance. But thats just how I roll.
You all are welcome to continue spit balling what you don't know about the motives of those involved. [Beer]
My $0.02..........[beatdeadhorse]
BladesNBarrels
09-09-2017, 09:36
My $0.02..........[beatdeadhorse]
Oh boy, I likes me some hoss meat!
[Dinner]
Report: Officer lost control before arresting Utah nurse (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/report-officer-lost-control-before-arresting-utah-nurse/ar-AArWx0h)
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah police chief will decide any possible punishment for an officer caught on video dragging a nurse from a hospital and handcuffing her after a review board found he lost control and got aggressive.
The civilian review board says it appears Detective Jeff Payne became upset during a long wait to draw blood from a patient and his frustration spilled over after nurse Alex Wubbels refused under hospital policy.
Attorney Greg Skordas said Thursday that the conclusions about Payne's emotions are speculation.
The report also faults supervisor Lt. James Tracy for not seeking legal advice on drawing blood from the car-crash victim. His attorney didn't have immediate comment.
It says a third unnamed officer missed a chance to calm things down despite a 2016 advisement for officers to intervene.
Report: Officer lost control before arresting Utah nurse (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/report-officer-lost-control-before-arresting-utah-nurse/ar-AArWx0h)
Just a solo bad actor who lost control huh?
Nope.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/13/slc-mayor-to-announce-findings-of-investigations-into-police-officers-who-arrested-nurse/
“[Y]our conduct, including both giving Det. Payne the order to arrest Ms. Wubbels and your subsequent telephone discussions with Hospital administrators, was discourteous and damages the positive working relationships the Department has worked hard to establish with the Hospital and other health care providers,” the report states.
Det. was sent there to do the draw.
Where is the list all the innocent reasons the watch commander (Tracy) ordered the draw, the arrest, and threatened hospital administrators on the phone?
Again, I don't think this way of all LE, but this case stinks.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/09/watch-commander-on-duty-during-nurse-arrest-has-been-placed-on-leave-attorney-says-hes-received-death-threats-and-asks-for-patience/
“If we’re breaking the law,” Tracy tells Wubbels, “If we’re doing wrong, there are civil remedies. It’s called taking fruit of the poisonous tree. If we took his blood illegally, it all goes away, alright? So there are civil remedies.”
Only relevant in a criminal trial after investigation > charging. Contradicts that "for the victim's own good" bullshit. But it could be admissible in a civil trial and limit the department's liability for a chase sanctioned by the same commander.
PCRB was not notified about this matter until 8/30/17, after the public release of the videotapes, due to an oversight within Internal Affairs. (Note: new procedures have been put in place to prevent such occurrences in the future.)
http://www.slcdocs.com/civreview/PCF/C2017-0062.pdf
This entire event stinks to high heaven.
If the police thought that this situation was handled improperly, why the total lack of action until the video was made public?
Circuits
09-15-2017, 10:58
http://www.slcdocs.com/civreview/PCF/C2017-0062.pdf
If the police thought that this situation was handled improperly, why the total lack of action until the video was made public?
Hoping it'd blow over and just go away.
Anyone know how the truck driver/Idaho policeman is doing?
O2
I read in one article that his condition was upgraded from critical to serious. That's all I know.
Officer in nurse arrest was reprimanded for sex harassment (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/officer-in-nurse-arrest-was-reprimanded-for-sex-harassment/ar-AAs9ya9)
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah officer caught on video dragging a nurse from a hospital and handcuffing her was previously reprimanded for sexually harassing a female co-worker, according to police documents released amid investigations into the arrest that became a flashpoint in the debate over police use of force.
Internal affairs investigations by Salt Lake City police confirmed allegations that Detective Jeff Payne harassed a department employee in a "severe and persistent" way in 2013. It included several incidents of unwanted physical contact and a disparaging email, the records say.
Hmmm....you don't say.
So sad. RIP William Gray.
Patient at Center of Utah Nurse's High-Profile Arrest Dies (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/patient-at-center-of-utah-nurses-high-profile-arrest-dies/ar-AAsvzMP)
SALT LAKE CITY — A hospital patient who a Utah nurse said she was protecting when she refused to allow police to draw his blood has died.
William Gray, a commercial truck driver and reserve police officer, died late Monday of the injuries he suffered when a fiery July 26 crash left him with burns over nearly half his body, University of Utah Health spokeswoman Suzanne Winchester said.
GilpinGuy
09-26-2017, 23:18
RIP
Damn shame. What a way to go.
Really sad. Working man just doing his job.
Part of what really got under my skin about "protecting him" by violating his rights.
Detective fired. Lt demoted.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/10/slc-police-chief-fires-one-officer-disciplines-another-in-nurse-arrest-case/
kawiracer14
10-11-2017, 12:47
Detective fired. Lt demoted.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/10/slc-police-chief-fires-one-officer-disciplines-another-in-nurse-arrest-case/
The best part about the story on 9 News is they are appealing the decision because if he didn't have a body cam and the internet didn't exist he never would have been fired.
Right - just like if you didn't catch me stealing something I would get away with it.
As my first Platoon Sergeant used to say, "You can have 1000 attaboys, but all it takes it one 'Ah, Shit'."
As my first Platoon Sergeant used to say, "You can have 1000 attaboys, but all it takes it one 'Ah, Shit'."
My experience is the same in the private sector.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.