Cop abuses nurse for protecting patient and following the law

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Spear Dane

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 4, 2015
    5,119
    113
    Kokomo area
    Read this. What an A-hole. Dude needs gone, he's obviously on a power trip. I've wondered if a large part of this problem is cops that lift and supplement.
     

    jagee

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jan 19, 2013
    44,412
    113
    New Palestine
    0203_authoritah1.jpg
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    I really dislike the idea of "police phlebotomist". I'm even trained as a phlebotomist (requirement for EMT-I in Kansas, but I'm 20-ish years out of practice, don't ask me to stick you) and think it's a really bad idea. Let the medical staff do medical stuff. People like nurses. They don't sue them for excessive force, even if it was. And trust me, if you're an a-hole to paramedics or nurses, there are some among them who will get back at you in ways you can't prove. Just a thought guys, but if someone has the authority to insert a catheter in you, be real nice to them. Anyway, back on point, I think it's better for everyone to have a medical staff member doing the actual needle poking with LE as an observer.

    Now, if you're going to be that nurse you better be REAL sure you're right. I've had several nurses tell me I couldn't do things. They were wrong. Nurses are not the arbitrators of procedural law and just because they tell me I can't do something doesn't mean I can't. (In this case, it appears she's right, just speaking in general). I've been told I can't interview juvenile victims without a parent present (think about that for a second, child abuse cases, sexual assault cases, etc. where the parent could be a suspect....yeah, that rule doesn't exist and she was confused about suspect vs victim). Most recent, I was asked to leave a patient's room because I didn't know the "password" and they were a no-info patient.*. She knew I was a detective, I'd already shown badge and photo ID, and even the patient told her I was the detective. I declined to leave and continued my interview. Another nurse came and gave me the "password"...

    *No information patient means the medical and support staff is to pretend the person isn't there, generally due to an ongoing threat to their safety. Guess how that determination is often made? The social worker asks the detective...

    Now, I don't know the laws in that state. Honestly, I'm a touch fuzzy on the current state of the law here in Indiana because I just don't deal with traffic crashes any longer. From what I recall, you'd be required to submit to a chemical test (or possibly just a PBT) if involved in a serious bodily injury/fatality crash regardless of fault. 9-30-7-3

    Sec. 3.  (a) A law enforcement officer shall offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury.  If:
    (1) the results of a portable breath test indicate the presence of alcohol;

    (2) the results of a portable breath test do not indicate the presence of alcohol but the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of a controlled substance or another drug;  or

    (3) the person refuses to submit to a portable breath test;

    the law enforcement officer shall offer a chemical test to the person.

    (b) A law enforcement officer may offer a person more than one (1) portable breath test or chemical test under this section.  However, all chemical tests must be administered within three (3) hours after the fatal accident or the accident involving serious bodily injury.

    (c) It is not necessary for a law enforcement officer to offer a portable breath test or chemical test to an unconscious person.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    I really dislike the idea of "police phlebotomist". I'm even trained as a phlebotomist (requirement for EMT-I in Kansas, but I'm 20-ish years out of practice, don't ask me to stick you) and think it's a really bad idea. Let the medical staff do medical stuff. People like nurses. They don't sue them for excessive force, even if it was. And trust me, if you're an a-hole to paramedics or nurses, there are some among them who will get back at you in ways you can't prove. Just a thought guys, but if someone has the authority to insert a catheter in you, be real nice to them. Anyway, back on point, I think it's better for everyone to have a medical staff member doing the actual needle poking with LE as an observer.

    Now, if you're going to be that nurse you better be REAL sure you're right. I've had several nurses tell me I couldn't do things. They were wrong. Nurses are not the arbitrators of procedural law and just because they tell me I can't do something doesn't mean I can't. (In this case, it appears she's right, just speaking in general). I've been told I can't interview juvenile victims without a parent present (think about that for a second, child abuse cases, sexual assault cases, etc. where the parent could be a suspect....yeah, that rule doesn't exist and she was confused about suspect vs victim). Most recent, I was asked to leave a patient's room because I didn't know the "password" and they were a no-info patient.*. She knew I was a detective, I'd already shown badge and photo ID, and even the patient told her I was the detective. I declined to leave and continued my interview. Another nurse came and gave me the "password"...

    *No information patient means the medical and support staff is to pretend the person isn't there, generally due to an ongoing threat to their safety. Guess how that determination is often made? The social worker asks the detective...

    Now, I don't know the laws in that state. Honestly, I'm a touch fuzzy on the current state of the law here in Indiana because I just don't deal with traffic crashes any longer. From what I recall, you'd be required to submit to a chemical test (or possibly just a PBT) if involved in a serious bodily injury/fatality crash regardless of fault. 9-30-7-3

    Sec. 3.  (a) A law enforcement officer shall offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident involving serious bodily injury.  If:
    (1) the results of a portable breath test indicate the presence of alcohol;

    (2) the results of a portable breath test do not indicate the presence of alcohol but the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of a controlled substance or another drug;  or

    (3) the person refuses to submit to a portable breath test;

    the law enforcement officer shall offer a chemical test to the person.

    (b) A law enforcement officer may offer a person more than one (1) portable breath test or chemical test under this section.  However, all chemical tests must be administered within three (3) hours after the fatal accident or the accident involving serious bodily injury.

    (c) It is not necessary for a law enforcement officer to offer a portable breath test or chemical test to an unconscious person.
    As memory serves, Indiana's SBI/fatality blood draw law is generally considered to be unconstitutional, per the US Supreme Court's decision out of I think Kansas a few years ago, in cases where there is no evidence to support probable cause of intoxication.

    I believe there was also an Indiana Court of Appeals decision saying so, but I don't remember off the top of my head.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Nurse dragged from hospital by police

    https://www.today.com/video/nurse-dragged-from-hospital-by-police-caught-on-video-1037438019868

    So it seems there was a vehicle collision, in which at least one driver was sent to the burn unit. Police arrive, request, then demand a blood sample from the now-patient.
    Nurse declines, as patient is not able to give consent nor have the cops got a warrant. What they do have is the power to arrest her and drag her from the hospital for doing her job correctly and by the book.

    And she has the ability, the right, and the duty to publicize the hell out of it.

    If the sample is so important you collect it, why don't you have a warrant in hand, Officer? If you don't like the fact that the nurse is following policy and law, an act you appear to find beneath you, perhaps another line of work might better suit you. (I'm reminded of the old "hall monitor" from Funky Winkerbean, with the machine gun mounted to his desk.)

    I don't know the law in Utah, but it's my understanding that if the nurse had complied and this had been in Indiana, the patient could later have sued her for battery. Further, unless I misunderstand the term, the "evidence" would have been the fruit of the poisonous tree, and been excluded.

    Good on her for getting this out.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,614
    149
    Valparaiso
    I remember researching this kind of issue as an "extern" at a prosecutor's office....and defending a hospital several years later that was more accommodating to the local constabulary....yeah, not good.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,614
    149
    Valparaiso
    The withdrawal of Hannoy's blood was not obtained pursuant to the guidelines in the implied consent statutes and cannot be justified as being drawn in accordance with those statutes. The withdrawal was not accomplished in accordance with the Fourth Amendment and Schmerber because there was no probable cause to believe Hannoy was intoxicated at the time his blood was drawn and no actual, knowing, and voluntary consent to the withdrawal. The “special needs” exception to the probable cause requirement cannot be applied in the context of a criminal investigation by law enforcement. Therefore, the blood alcohol content evidence obtained from the blood draw performed at the request of law enforcement was illegally obtained and should not have been admitted into evidence by the trial court.
    Hannoy v. State, 789 N.E.2d 977, 989 (Ind. App. 2003), on reh'g, 793 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind. App. 2003)
     
    Top Bottom