Cop abuses nurse for protecting patient and following the law

[jsharmon7]

Female's take:

Also, question for those more educated. If she was handcuffed and sitting in the patrol car, at what point should she have been read her Miranda Rights? They had her sitting in the car for 20 minutes. That's questionable to me, but again, I'm not sure of exact procedure in that situation.

Advisement of Miranda rights isn't mandatory simply because one is being arrested or detained. If the Officer wanted to ask her questions about the alleged crime, then he would need to advise her of those rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Advisement of Miranda rights isn't mandatory simply because one is being arrested or detained. If the Officer wanted to ask her questions about the alleged crime, then he would need to advise her of those rights.

If I had a penny everytime somebody complained about that...













....I'd have at least 50 cents.

 

[rhino]

Advisement of Miranda rights isn't mandatory simply because one is being arrested or detained. If the Officer wanted to ask her questions about the alleged crime, then he would need to advise her of those rights.

So, if the purposes were to intimidate and demonstrate domination, no Miranda reading necessary, correct?

 

[jsharmon7]

So, if the purposes were to intimidate and demonstrate domination, no Miranda reading necessary, correct?

I do not believe that was addressed by any Miranda decisions I have seen, you are correct. Mainly just questioning, so terrorizing and intimidating seem to go beyond the scope of that. Thanks for the question, and I hope that clarifies it.

 

[Fargo]

So, if the purposes were to intimidate and demonstrate domination, no Miranda reading necessary, correct?

Purpose of what? Arrest by itself does not require Miranda, only questioning after arrest requires it. Generally, Miranda violations result in the answers not being admissible in court for the prosecution, I do not know of any successful civil actions for Miranda violations but I suppose they are theoretically kind of possible.

In this case, I do seem to remember the cop asking some questions after he arrested her, but as far as constitutional violations go that is pretty insignificant compared to the illegal arrest/battery. From what I know of the case, I likely favor pursuing criminal action against him. Very little about this is consistent with an honest mistake.

 

[rhino]

I do not believe that was addressed by any Miranda decisions I have seen, you are correct. Mainly just questioning, so terrorizing and intimidating seem to go beyond the scope of that. Thanks for the question, and I hope that clarifies it.

I thank you, sir! Your response was concise, informative, and professional.

Purpose of what? Arrest by itself does not require Miranda, only questioning after arrest requires it. Generally, Miranda violations result in the answers not being admissible in court for the prosecution, I do not know of any successful civil actions for Miranda violations but I suppose they are theoretically kind of possible.

In this case, I do seem to remember the cop asking some questions after he arrested her, but as far as constitutional violations go that is pretty insignificant compared to the illegal arrest/battery. From what I know of the case, I likely favor pursuing criminal action against him. Very little about this is consistent with an honest mistake.

Ah, uh, well, I was actually just piggy-backing the previous question in order to continue smartass commentary about the officer's actions in the guise of a question.

 

[jsharmon7]

I thank you, sir! Your response was concise, informative, and professional.

.

Absolutely! The law can be tricky, and especially so when one just starts making it up on the fly.

 

[HoughMade]

Purpose of what? Arrest by itself does not require Miranda, only questioning after arrest requires it. Generally, Miranda violations result in the answers not being admissible in court for the prosecution, I do not know of any successful civil actions for Miranda violations but I suppose they are theoretically kind of possible.

In this case, I do seem to remember the cop asking some questions after he arrested her, but as far as constitutional violations go that is pretty insignificant compared to the illegal arrest/battery. From what I know of the case, I likely favor pursuing criminal action against him. Very little about this is consistent with an honest mistake.

Questioning after arrest with no Miranda warning isn't unconstitutional. Using the answers in court is. There is no constitutional violation with just the questioning, only with it being used against the arrestee. Therefore, there would not be a colorable civil claim until the answers get used in court.

 

[rhino]

Absolutely! The law can be tricky, and especially so when one just starts making it up on the fly.

Indeed!

Which leads me to believe that the two individuals in question have significant experience making their own laws on the fly since they performed that task with such . . . aplomb in the video!

Am I the first to use the word "aplomb" on INGO?

 

[Fargo]

Questioning after arrest with no Miranda warning isn't unconstitutional. Using the answers in court is. There is no constitutional violation with just the questioning, only with it being used against the arrestee. Therefore, there would not be a colorable civil claim until the answers get used in court.

Not being a smart ass, but do you have a cite on that? Since Miranda is theoretically premised upon the inherently coercive nature of in-custody questioning, I was under the impression that the "coercion" of the confession was considered the constitutional violation.

All of this is of course leaving aside that the requirement of Miranda rights are found nowhere in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court agrees that it is something they made up and call a quasi-constitutional rule that they enforce as if it was in the Constitution...

 

[Route 45]

She may not be suing yet, but something tells me she is going to have a very comfortable retirement. But seriously, I love our police officers and 99% of the time would back them up, but in this case he needs to go.

This cop was dead wrong. But I doubt that she is going to get any kind of settlement that's even remotely close to a "comfortable retirement."

 

[HoughMade]

This cop was dead wrong. But I doubt that she is going to get any kind of settlement that's even remotely close to a "comfortable retirement."

You sir, are correct. If she sues (and given the venue), I would predict something south of $150,000, or right around that.

 

[HoughMade]

Not being a smart ass, but do you have a cite on that? Since Miranda is theoretically premised upon the inherently coercive nature of in-custody questioning, I was under the impression that the "coercion" of the confession was considered the constitutional violation.

All of this is of course leaving aside that the requirement of Miranda rights are found nowhere in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court agrees that it is something they made up and call a quasi-constitutional rule that they enforce as if it was in the Constitution...

Give me some time. I have to find something to bill this to.

[edited to add]

Here it is:

Rules designed to safeguard a constitutional right, however, do not extend the scope of the constitutional right itself, just as violations of judicially crafted prophylactic rules do not violate the constitutional rights of any person. As we explained, we have allowed the Fifth Amendment privilege to be asserted by witnesses in noncriminal cases in order to safeguard the core constitutional right defined by the Self–Incrimination Clause—the right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself. We have likewise established the Miranda exclusionary rule as a prophylactic measure to prevent violations of the right protected by the text of the Self–Incrimination Clause—the admission into evidence in a criminal case of confessions obtained through coercive custodial questioning… Accordingly, Chavez's failure to read Miranda warnings to Martinez did not violate Martinez's constitutional rights and cannot be grounds for a § 1983 action. … Tucker, supra, at 444, 94 S.Ct. 2357 (Miranda's safeguards “were not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but were instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected”). And the absence of a “criminal case” in which Martinez was compelled to be a “witness” against himself defeats his core Fifth Amendment claim. The Ninth Circuit's view that mere compulsion violates the Self–Incrimination Clause… finds no support in the text of the Fifth Amendment and is irreconcilable with our case law.

Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 772–73 (2003).

PM the address to send the bill, or we can e-mail it.

 

[Alamo]

...

Am I the first to use the word "aplomb" on INGO?

Not even close to first. 34 results return when searched on, of which the earliest reachable one is this 2009 entry: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-weapon-gun-control-advocates.html#post233541

Granted this is text copied in from another source.

Earliest reachable INGOer use appears to be JBLee: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-m1600-22-plastic-armyman-rifle-its-cool.html

 

[HoughMade]

Not even close to first. 34 results return when searched on, of which the earliest reachable one is this 2009 entry: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-weapon-gun-control-advocates.html#post233541

Granted this is text copied in from another source.

Earliest reachable INGOer use appears to be JBLee: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-m1600-22-plastic-armyman-rifle-its-cool.html

I always make sure the hinge side of my door jams are aplomb.

 

[myhightechsec]

I always make sure the hinge side of my door jams are aplomb.

We were going to repaint our house aplomb but decided to go with apuce instead.

 

[Alamo]

Mother Of APlomb

 

[Libertarian01]

I have read several articles regarding this case, and I do find it fascinating how emotional people get about the nurse being arrested. When we argue with a LEO outside of a court of law what possible outcome can there be when the LEO honestly believes he/she is in the right? Duh! Has it not been said in multiple posts around this very forum that you DO NOT ARGUE with the LEO at the side of the road explaining how he/she is wrong? Or if you do expect to wear a nice set of new bracelets for awhile, if not worse.

What really bothers me though is the media (and Ms. Wubbel's) perception that hospital policy would alone dictate how things must go. I get so very tired of people (I mean sheeple) believing that just because the BLANK says we must do something a certain way that we fall in line and do so. Take for example how many people allow themselves to be wheeled out of the hospital just because it is "hospital policy." What really makes hospital policy so damned important that we must override common sense in many cases? Nothing. Yet we as sheep (or rather lemmings) just fall in line and follow one another off the cliff of blind obedience. I think this is what bothers me the most - blind obedience.

That Ms. Wubbel's may have also been legally correct is important, but even agreeing that she was in the right it wasn't very violent in my opinion. Watching the video she made it worse. For all the LEO's here tell us, if you can, what percentage of arrests actually go smoother than hers? Maybe if you're doing white collar crimes? Argue your point with the LEO, make your point as succinctly as possible, then prepare to be arrested. It isn't rocket science. You make your legal point in a court of law where the scales are balanced, not on the roadside where the win will always go to the LEO.

In this particular case it appears that Detective Payne was acting out of concern for a fellow officer, the patient from whom he wanted the blood draw. It is my understanding that a second party had been operating illegally and died in the accident. Detective Payne, knowing how civil proceedings could go, had the foresight to understand that solid proof could be extremely beneficial to the unconscious victim from whom he wanted blood so that later it could be proved that the victim was in no way impaired. The family of the dead driver could sue the unconscious victim for wrongful death, arguing that he was on the road impaired, and thus also contributed to the accident. A blood draw would have conclusively shut down that line of argument.

Let us also not skim over the fact that Detective Payne was allegedly following orders from his Lieutenant. It could have been his job on the line for failure to follow orders. Some LEO have the luxury of union representation, others no such protection.

I just don't see the emotional distress at her arrest. She argued by the side of the road, what did she (we) expect?

I drive elderly and disabled people for a living. In a hypothetical situation I may at some future point have an interaction with a LEO who is demanding information about one of my clients that I may (due to the situation) refuse to answer (for whatever reason.) I fully expect one (1) of two (2) possible outcomes; #1) the LEO accepts my reason for not cooperating, or #2) the LEO does not accept my reasoning and arrests me. There is NO 3rd option, and the ball isn't in my court, it is in the LEO's. Once he/she says I'm under arrest I'll respectfully state my refusal to speak at all without an attorney. My first phone call will be to work telling them to call America Bonding Company and get my butt out of jail, and while they're at it send their attorney down here pronto to speak with me. That's it - simple. No muss, no fuss. I'll be an easy arrest. Then IF I have to I'll get my own attorney and sue someone, but I won't win the argument at the side of the road.

And just thinking about it, how many times has nurse Wubbel's witnessed an arrest? I'm certain they're not that uncommon in the ER. How many times has she witnessed someone explain how they weren't breaking the law and the LEO just says, "Oh. Ok, I understand now. Mea culpa. I'm just walking away. Bye bye..." She certainly had to be aware of what was coming.

Regards,

Doug

PS - For the record, I believe Det Payne acted inappropriately and Ms. Wubbels was in the right, I just don't like the emotional narrative put on this story.

 

[churchmouse]

PS - For the record, I believe Det Payne acted inappropriately and Ms. Wubbels was in the right, I just don't like the emotional narrative put on this story.

Dave,
Lets look at this from the perspective of Nurse Wubbels. She was acting in the best interest of her job and its policy's. Her "Boss" was telling her to hold off and he was (I believe) coming to deal with this. (If I am wrong here I apologize but that is how I take this) so Det. Payne should have waited and dealt with him. Lay his hands on a man of real authority in the Hospital. Not the nurse doing as she is told fearing for her job. Det. Payne was being a badge bully of the highest order at that point. To see the other LEO allowing him to do this just shows they were letting the ranking officer do as he will and they were not willing to risk their positions to set this right. Chain of command basically.

Now, if that were my Mom/spouse/sister and I saw that video I would have to start a go fund me page for legal expenses. It is one thing to snatch up an unruly individual male or female young or old. It is a totally different thing to do as the badge bully did here. I fear he and I would have a FTF that would end very badly for both of us. Regardless he would at least understand my point of view how ever it would be delivered. You do not man handle a female in that manner for what she did. It in no way compares to a road side stop with LEO. Those 2 situations are night and day IMHO.
Yes, there is some emotion involved here.

 

[Doug]

The officer is a forensic phlebotomist.
He wanted to draw blood.
The nurse said you can't do that without a warrant. She did not interfere with his drawing the blood.
The officer arrested her for telling him no.

Her crime is contempt of cop.