Cop abuses nurse for protecting patient and following the law

[PistolBob]

The cop...needs a taser to the groin boys, a taser to the groin. I sent her the phone number to Abdul Hakim-Shabazz. If he can't help her sue, maybe he can refer her.

 

[churchmouse]

I want to state openly that I am a staunch supporter of LE in this city. That I want to kick the topic of this thread in the junk is an individual thing.

 

[bmbutch]

I want to state openly that I am a staunch supporter of LE in this city. That I want to kick the topic of this thread in the junk is an individual thing.

^^^With steel toe boots on^^^. Pray for & appreciate our LEO, this guy has issues.

 

[jsharmon7]

I want to state openly that I am a staunch supporter of LE in this city. That I want to kick the topic of this thread in the junk is an individual thing.

CM, I am certain that nobody here doubts this.

This guy made a very bad choice. In this case, I would wager he is going to pay for it. I would guess he's ran into issues with staff and blood draws before and overreacted. He should have stepped back, taken a breath, and assessed the situation. As many have already mentioned regarding the "what if" of it being their spouse, bad decisions are made when emotion is driving them.

 

[DragonGunner]

So can anyone tell me if they got the blood or not then? Also I saw a post that said look up that states law and because he was DOT driver the officer was in the right to have access to his blood without cause or a warrant and the nurse was in the wrong. Since I don't know what state this is or good with law anyone want to investigate that?

 

[Bill of Rights]

As was said, he needs to pay for this personally, not hide behind his FOP or his department. He needs to step forward, admit he was wrong, and offer to pay any damages... especially since there aren't any physical damages to be paid. That would be a start. he then needs to resign his badge and ride off into the sunset. Never to be seen or heard from again.(Just to be clear, I'm saying he needs to go off into anonymity.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BugI02]

In addition to his being a schoolyard bully, the part that is seemingly lost here is the patient (truck driver) was comatose. That triggered the alarm bells when I started reading the story. He cannot exercise choice in either consenting to a search of his blood or by refusing consent for said search without a search warrant. Absent a search warrant, consent is required. No ticket, no laundry. No warrant or consent, no search.

It would be the same thing if I were sound asleep on my living room couch and a police officer or sheriff deputy walked up to my open front door with just the screen door closed for a flow-through breeze. Then he enters my home and starts searching it without a warrant when there aren't any exigent circumstances (i.e. a probable victim screaming for help). Since I'm sound asleep, I can neither consent to the search, nor require him to first obtain a warrant. End result: he has no consent and therefore cannot lawfully search the premises. Even if he suspected I might be in need of medical attention, he cannot go any further than rendering aid. Unless something is in very plain view in my immediate vicinity while doing that, anything seized is inadmissible and anything derived from it is fruit of the forbidden tree. During 21 years commissioned service in the US Army, I had a few trips through the knife and fork school regarding reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and how to not get in trouble when authorizing searches (exact same process a tribunal would follow), or in conducting them, or in handling any evidence afterward, to include some of the relevant court precedents.

IMHO, that's where the cop screwed up by not getting a search warrant, and if he couldn't (no PC) he was simply SOL. The nurse was simply enforcing the principle that the patient could not make that choice, and she, lacking a power of attorney or equivalent power cannot make that choice on his behalf. If she had drawn the blood, she would possibly be liable for malpractice or a similar tort claim, having deliberately performed a procedure she knew she wasn't supposed to.

John

IAsoooNAL, but in my reading about this my thought is the problem arose by the nurse trying to physically prevent the blood draw. Why is this not interfering with police business? In your example it seem analagous to your neighbor coming over and interrupting the officer's search of your house and trying to escort same off the premises. Absent some articulable threat to the patient's health (and not his 'legal health') from the draw, and given that the officer claims proper training to perform the blood draw safely, I just don't see it as the nurse's right or responsibility to enforce her own particular interpretation of the fourth amendment. The proper venue is in a court of law. If the draw is not legally supported it will be suppressed. If she wanted to do something, she could have contacted the watch commander or similar authority and expressed her doubts/concerns

“I just feel betrayed, I feel angry, I feel a lot of things,” Wubbels said during the news conference. “I am still confused. I’m a health care worker. The only job I have is to keep my patients safe.”

What threat to the safety of the patient's health does she feel she is preventing? Anything else is not within her purview and I think exhibits confusion over what her role should be

Regardless of the legal issues at stake; what is the likely result if the police were to seek to search one of a group of us, and another individual of that group intervened and moved to prevent that search? The fact that the individual in question is unconscious also means that the nurse cannot know his articulated wishes in the matter and cannot claim to represent them. She also is not his authorized or assigned legal representative and his legal rights are not part of her job concerns in any way. She was not going to be required to perform or participate in the procedure in any way, so concerns over personal liability would seem specious. Once you have made your objections known to the officer and your supervisors, step aside

 

[IndyDave1776]

So can anyone tell me if they got the blood or not then? Also I saw a post that said look up that states law and because he was DOT driver the officer was in the right to have access to his blood without cause or a warrant and the nurse was in the wrong. Since I don't know what state this is or good with law anyone want to investigate that?

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/drug-alcohol-testing/what-tests-are-required-and-when-does-testing-occur

No mention of blood samples. As with most things, even those required require voluntary compliance with penalties for noncompliance, not taking a sample without consent because Officer Dickhead says to do it by god right now.

 

[SwikLS]

Sorry but my good old fashion hobbit sense is kicking in. Doesnt the fact that person can consent or deny the taking of their blood prove they are not drunk and therefore no probable cause?

 

[VUPDblue]

Doesnt the fact that person can consent or deny the taking of their blood prove they are not drunk and therefore no probable cause?

Can you clarify? They way I'm reading this, you are saying that the simple ability to give or deny consent means that no impairment exists. That can't be what you are saying, is it?

 

[Stickfight]

Just saw this one on the news and it looks like the officer has dug himself a pretty deep hole.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I want to state openly that I am a staunch supporter of LE in this city. That I want to kick the topic of this thread in the junk is an individual thing.

Unfortunately, 1 idiot with a badge, can ruining for the exponentially higher numbers of officers that serve honorably. Very rarely do cops get credit for the things they do day in and day out.
Did you see the guy in Cobb, GA who told the scared driver "we only shoot black people." I understand it was sarcasm, but it's an absolutely idiotic thing to say, and definitely doesn't inspire confidence from the public.

 

[Doug]

IAsoooNAL, but in my reading about this my thought is the problem arose by the nurse trying to physically prevent the blood draw. Why is this not interfering with police business? In your example it seem analagous to your neighbor coming over and interrupting the officer's search of your house and trying to escort same off the premises. Absent some articulable threat to the patient's health (and not his 'legal health') from the draw, and given that the officer claims proper training to perform the blood draw safely, I just don't see it as the nurse's right or responsibility to enforce her own particular interpretation of the fourth amendment. The proper venue is in a court of law. If the draw is not legally supported it will be suppressed. If she wanted to do something, she could have contacted the watch commander or similar authority and expressed her doubts/concerns




What threat to the safety of the patient's health does she feel she is preventing? Anything else is not within her purview and I think exhibits confusion over what her role should be

Regardless of the legal issues at stake; what is the likely result if the police were to seek to search one of a group of us, and another individual of that group intervened and moved to prevent that search? The fact that the individual in question is unconscious also means that the nurse cannot know his articulated wishes in the matter and cannot claim to represent them. She also is not his authorized or assigned legal representative and his legal rights are not part of her job concerns in any way. She was not going to be required to perform or participate in the procedure in any way, so concerns over personal liability would seem specious. Once you have made your objections known to the officer and your supervisors, step aside

My understanding is that she did not try to stop him from drawing the blood, she just told him he couldn't.

 

[SwikLS]

Can you clarify? They way I'm reading this, you are saying that the simple ability to give or deny consent means that no impairment exists. That can't be what you are saying, is it?

not no impairment but impairment beyond the legal limit

 

[SwikLS]

Unfortunately, 1 idiot with a badge, can ruining for the exponentially higher numbers of officers that serve honorably. Very rarely do cops get credit for the things they do day in and day out.
Did you see the guy in Cobb, GA who told the scared driver "we only shoot black people." I understand it was sarcasm, but it's an absolutely idiotic thing to say, and definitely doesn't inspire confidence from the public.

obviously sarcasm, maybe idiotic, as for public confidence, well that depends on how stupid the public is and given the backlash from the whole thing, I'd say pretty d*mn stupid.

 

[IndyDave1776]

IAsoooNAL, but in my reading about this my thought is the problem arose by the nurse trying to physically prevent the blood draw. Why is this not interfering with police business? In your example it seem analagous to your neighbor coming over and interrupting the officer's search of your house and trying to escort same off the premises. Absent some articulable threat to the patient's health (and not his 'legal health') from the draw, and given that the officer claims proper training to perform the blood draw safely, I just don't see it as the nurse's right or responsibility to enforce her own particular interpretation of the fourth amendment. The proper venue is in a court of law. If the draw is not legally supported it will be suppressed. If she wanted to do something, she could have contacted the watch commander or similar authority and expressed her doubts/concerns

Like Doug, I didn't see any forcible intervention. It isn't interfering in police business, but rather the police interfering in hospital business. If the cop can't produce consent, a warrant, or proof of arrest, it is right and proper to tell him to go pound sand. It isn't the nurse's responsibility to provide a compelling case for her position. The man is in hospital custody and the officer was attempting to violate the rights of both, his status as a qualified phlebotomist being completely irrelevant.

What threat to the safety of the patient's health does she feel she is preventing? Anything else is not within her purview and I think exhibits confusion over what her role should be

Insisting on keeping activities happening at the hospital legal according to the hospital's legal advisers is her purview.

Regardless of the legal issues at stake; what is the likely result if the police were to seek to search one of a group of us, and another individual of that group intervened and moved to prevent that search? The fact that the individual in question is unconscious also means that the nurse cannot know his articulated wishes in the matter and cannot claim to represent them. She also is not his authorized or assigned legal representative and his legal rights are not part of her job concerns in any way. She was not going to be required to perform or participate in the procedure in any way, so concerns over personal liability would seem specious. Once you have made your objections known to the officer and your supervisors, step aside

This is analogous to the police deciding to violate the rights of people at your home by entering without a warrant or any probable cause of wrong-doing and you telling them to find somewhere else to be. There is no such thing as neutral consent. Under most any law dealing with consent of any type you have to be coherent and mentally sound in order to legally give consent. There are legions of rapists who would love to be able to use this logic in court after drugging a victim.

 

[VUPDblue]

not no impairment but impairment beyond the legal limit

Just to be most clear, you are saying that the ability to answer a question indicates the absence of impairment beyond the legal limit? I'm not sure I can wrap my head around that.

 

[SwikLS]

Just to be most clear, you are saying that the ability to answer a question indicates the absence of impairment beyond the legal limit? I'm not sure I can wrap my head around that.

Well yeah, I mean if there is probably cause for beyond the legal limit justifying a blood test then wouldn't a denial of the taking of that blood by the individual mean the individual is below that limit?

 

[VUPDblue]

So if I have PC that a person is impaired above the legal limit, all he has to do is say "no I'm not" and that somehow makes it so?

 

[churchmouse]

So if I have PC that a person is impaired above the legal limit, all he has to do is say "no I'm not" and that somehow makes it so?

I thought that was an automatic go to jail card.