Cop abuses nurse for protecting patient and following the law

[jkaetz]

Listening to the video one of the officers talks about simply letting the hospital draw the blood, to satisfy the obvious time limit, and then figure out whether the officers can have it later. But this is only after the nurse has been put in the car and things have escalated. To me it seems like this should have been suggested/requested earlier. Who knows if it would have changed the outcome, the nurse clearly didn't understand that in the moment the detective held all the power. She was not going to get out of the handcuffs by trying to tell them what they already knew and citing hospital policy. It's like trying to argue traffic law with an officer that has pulled you over. You just don't do it. You remain silent and argue in court if you want to.

 

[T.Lex]

Mmmmmm, yes but you get docked points for misspelling Pepa.

Wait. Whut?

[frantic googling]

Dammit.

In my defense, I don't think I've ever spelled it before.

 

[Bill of Rights]

She's more forgiving than I would be. You're going to arrest me for doing my job? I know a couple of lawyers that would look upon this as a financial opportunity, as would I. I also think I'd be suing the defective (no typo!) personally, rather than in his role as a city employee, if that's possible. There's no reason the taxpayers should have to pay for this crap.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

Wait. Whut?

[frantic googling]

Dammit.

In my defense, I don't think I've ever spelled it before.

Shame!

 

[VUPDblue]

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.

Our SBI/Fatality blood draw law has been upheld and is constitutional. States that get into hot water over this apply criminal penalties to refusal of administrative chemical tests that lack probable cause. In Indiana, if you refuse a chemical test and there is no probable cause that you are impaired, there is an administrative penalty that is loss of license for one year and a class C infraction. The courts all over this nation are taking the view that criminal penalties are unconstitutional but administrative penalties are acceptable.

In Indiana, if you are the driver involved in a SBI/Fatal crash you are required to submit to a chemical test, but refusal simply earns you a ticket and a temporary loss of license. If there is PC that you are impaired and you refuse, a warrant may be issued and the blood collected without your consent.

I am on the unit that is probably our equivalent of what the officer in the OP is on and I have been denied access to patients on several occasions. I have a fantastic working relationship with the hospital staff where our business is conducted and they are very good about doing what they can as often as they can, but sometimes it is just not feasible.

 

[MarkC]

If I'm understanding the situation correctly, there was no probable cause for the blood draw. In Indiana, as noted above, IC 9-30-7 applies if the driver was involved in a crash resulting in death or bodily injury. If there is no probable cause to suspect OWI, then the only grounds an Indiana officer would have to offer the test is under IC 9-30-7, which requires no probable cause. However, if no probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, then there is no support for a warrant.

The penalty for refusing a no-PC crash only chemical test is an infraction.

If there is PC, then the officer can get a warrant.

If there is no PC, and there is no consent, and thus no warrant, law enforcement just has to do without the blood draw. That is a feature, not a bug.

It was sometimes difficult to get troopers to understand that, when I was in that line of work.

 

[MarkC]

Our SBI/Fatality blood draw law has been upheld and is constitutional. States that get into hot water over this apply criminal penalties to refusal of administrative chemical tests that lack probable cause. In Indiana, if you refuse a chemical test and there is no probable cause that you are impaired, there is an administrative penalty that is loss of license for one year and a class C infraction. The courts all over this nation are taking the view that criminal penalties are unconstitutional but administrative penalties are acceptable.

In Indiana, if you are the driver involved in a SBI/Fatal crash you are required to submit to a chemical test, but refusal simply earns you a ticket and a temporary loss of license. If there is PC that you are impaired and you refuse, a warrant may be issued and the blood collected without your consent.

I am on what is probably our equivalent of what the officer in the OP is on and I have been denied access to patients on several occasions. I have a fantastic working relationship with the hospital staff where our business is conducted and they are very good about doing what they can as often as they can, but sometimes it is just not feasible.

Apparently we were saying the same things at the same time, but VUPDblue got it a bit more eloquently.

 

[Fargo]

I am referring to 9-30-6-6(g) which even IPAC has conceded is probably afoul the McNeely case. I am not talking about the issues in the North Dakota case from a year or two ago which dealt with criminalizing refusal.

http://www.monroeprosecutor.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/May2013PPU.pdf

 

[Bill of Rights]

Our SBI/Fatality blood draw law has been upheld and is constitutional. States that get into hot water over this apply criminal penalties to refusal of administrative chemical tests that lack probable cause. In Indiana, if you refuse a chemical test and there is no probable cause that you are impaired, there is an administrative penalty that is loss of license for one year and a class C infraction. The courts all over this nation are taking the view that criminal penalties are unconstitutional but administrative penalties are acceptable.

In Indiana, if you are the driver involved in a SBI/Fatal crash you are required to submit to a chemical test, but refusal simply earns you a ticket and a temporary loss of license. If there is PC that you are impaired and you refuse, a warrant may be issued and the blood collected without your consent.

I am on what is probably our equivalent of what the officer in the OP is on and I have been denied access to patients on several occasions. I have a fantastic working relationship with the hospital staff where our business is conducted and they are very good about doing what they can as often as they can, but sometimes it is just not feasible.

THIS is the attitude I want to see from everyone. LEOs especially, but everyone in general. Work with each other as much as you can and understand and find another way if possible and legal, and understand when it is not.

Thanks, VUPD... You are appreciated!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[AmmoManAaron]

The courts all over this nation are taking the view that criminal penalties are unconstitutional but administrative penalties are acceptable.

Just reading along here, but the above is pretty messed up! How is one kind of punishment different from any other type punishment when a person hasn't actually been found guilty of anything? What are the limits of these "administrative penalties" and haven't they been pretty badly abused re: asset forfeiture?

 

[femurphy77]

It's o.k. . . . . .he said he didn't know he couldn't draw the blood. Ignorance of the law apparently is a valid defense now.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just reading along here, but the above is pretty messed up! How is one kind of punishment different from any other type punishment when a person hasn't actually been found guilty of anything? What are the limits of these "administrative penalties" and haven't they been pretty badly abused re: asset forfeiture?

It's like contract law. You agree to the penalties if you breach the contract when you sign the contract. When you get your license, you agree to implied consent, etc.

 

[eldirector]

Catch 22 for sure.

Draw the blood illegally, and risk her job, license, criminal liability, and civil liability.

Don't draw the blood, and risk criminal liability (getting arrested), which could impact her job and license.

If you are going to go down either way, it may as well be for the right reasons.

 

[SMiller]

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

You are forgetting one detail, the person struck was a off duty cop driving a semi.

I think there is even more to the story, the nice part is that now that this has national media attention the police Dept will be forced to fire him and no one else will want to touch this *******.

 

[Expat]

All I know about it, is what they had on the Today Show this morning. They said the hospital and the police department had an agreement/policy understanding, that blood would be drawn if 1)patient gives consent, 2) warrant, or 3)they place the person under arrest.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You are forgetting one detail, the person struck was a off duty cop driving a semi.

I think there is even more to the story, the nice part is that now that this has national media attention the police Dept will be forced to fire him and no one else will want to touch this *******.

I didn't forget it, I never saw that detail, so thanks for adding it in!

As to him being fired and no one else touching him.... Look how long it took Canton OH to get rid of their little dirtbag, Harless.

And then there was talk of them hiring him back!

Maybe Utah has a better cadre of public officials in charge of hiring.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

All I know about it, is what they had on the Today Show this morning. They said the hospital and the police department had an agreement/policy understanding, that blood would be drawn if 1)patient gives consent, 2) warrant, or 3)they place the person under arrest.

Any agreement doesn't really matter as regards execution of nonconsensual evidentiary blood draws unless there is both PC and a warrant or PC and an existing exception to the warrant requirement. Lack of any part of either is going to run afoul of the fourth amendment as explained in the SCOTUS McNeely decision.

In this case, it sounds to me like the officer was doubly afoul of the fourth amendment. He did not have PC, and because he didn't have PC he couldn't get the required warrant or avail himself of any exception.

 

[Expat]

Any agreement doesn't really matter as regards execution of nonconsensual evidentiary blood draws unless there is both PC and a warrant or PC and an existing exception to the warrant requirement. Lack of any part of either is going to run afoul of the fourth amendment as explained in the SCOTUS McNeely decision.

In this case, it sounds to me like the officer was doubly afoul of the fourth amendment. He did not have PC, and because he didn't have PC he couldn't get the required warrant or avail himself of any exception.

It matters to the extent, the officer wasn't honoring the understanding the department and hospital had. I am not talking any legalities, just that he was being a jerk.

 

[Fargo]

It matters to the extent, the officer wasn't honoring the understanding the department and hospital had. I am not talking any legalities, just that he was being a jerk.

That too!

 

[Doug]

So this police officer is big enough and strong enough to arrest the nurse and stuff her into a police car, but her saying, "You can't draw the blood," is powerful enough to stop him? How could she physically stop him if he was determined?
I think the better action would be saying, "Drawing that blood is unreasonable search and seizure and assault. I will make a report and be a witness to those facts."

The officer was described as "going off;" an out of control cop is a shooty cop. If you're going to argue with a cop, it had better be in a court room.