- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hospital nurse arrested after refusing illegal blood draw order
Posted on 9/1/17 at 8:59 pm to magildachunks
Posted on 9/1/17 at 8:59 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Hospital administration got down there pretty quick after.
Really? I saw the cops intimidating her as she sat handcuffed in the car outside the hospital about 10 minutes after the altercation. Some guy wearing a white polo shirt and a hospital badge on his phone, sure didn't appear to be anyone high up the chain of command. Where was the administrative delegate, house supervisor, CNO, COO? Probably in a fricking meeting.
3
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:03 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
And you would have been completely wrong. Qualified immunity is a defense to Section 1983 liability. It isn't eliminated just because you allege a violation of your constitutional rights.
Qualified immunity has two steps: 1) a violation of a constitutional right; 2) that was clearly established at the time. The latter part has to have a reasonably on point case that places the issue beyond doubt.
Qualified immunity will apply here. If you find me a case that says a cop clearly violated the law for arresting a nurse who refused to comply because of internal policy, I'll admit I'm wrong.
The cop fricked up, but my whole point was that he is protected from this frick up.
I don't believe he had the legal right to demand a blood sample. It wasn't just hospital policy that stopped her. Watch the whole video she says "this is the policy that the police department agreed with". She was within her legal right to say no. No warrant, no arrest, no consent... NO BLOOD SAMPLE. Implied consent doesn't work here. 2013 SCOTUS decided that warantless blood draws were against the 4th Ammendment. There is no more implied consent for blood.
Here is a link with more information as to why the cops were legally in the wrong and the nurse was right...legally. LINK
If that's not enough you can read the actual implied consent law in Utah. LINK The police must have "probable cause" to believe the driver was under the influence for implied consent to be valid. Listen to the video. The "body cam" cop asks "why can't we just get a warrant"? Capt. Dumbass says "we don't have PC", as in probable cause. That cop knew good and damn well that he was wrong and arrested her anyway but not before assaulting her. If that's not a violation of her civil rights I'm not sure what is.
She was arrested for "contempt of cop". He was pissed she didn't follow his order and arrested her for it. You don't have to follow unlawful commands even if you are a soldier in the military. John Q. Public damn sure doesn't have to take action based on the unlawful command of a police officer. The obstruction charge was bogus.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 9/1/17 at 9:03 pm to 62Tigerfan
quote:
Really? I saw the cops intimidating her as she sat handcuffed in the car outside the hospital about 10 minutes after the altercation. Some guy wearing a white polo shirt and a hospital badge on his phone, sure didn't appear to be anyone high up the chain of command. Where was the administrative delegate, house supervisor, CNO, COO? Probably in a fricking meeting.
The administrator shows up right after he gets done talking to her. That's when the administrator comes into view.
She was probably told to hold off for a moment by the hospital cops or was trying to get the situation info from them.
Say it takes four to five minutes to get to the ER, another two to three to get info, then they tell her she can go talk to the cop.
That's pretty good timing.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:05 pm to magildachunks
Well in not cases law does trump policy and rules but this guy handled this in the worst way possible.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:08 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:10 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
Well in not cases law does trump policy and rules
What?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:12 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
Well in not cases law does trump policy and rules but this guy handled this in the worst way possible.
Read the post above. Her policy was right AND in compliance with the law. He had NO LEGAL basis to demand a sample. What the cop did was illegal and I bet he knew it.
If I were a betting man the police were going to try and besmirch the victims character to ensure the Dept. was off the hook in case the truck driver tried to sue the dept. for the chase. They said they were doing it to "protect" the victim. The nurse said that any blood test would be contaminated because they had already given him narcotics. What good was the blood test for "protection" of the victim at that point? The cops were trying to cover their asses and got caught.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:31 pm to 62Tigerfan
quote:
Where was the administrative delegate, house supervisor, CNO, COO? Probably in a fricking meeting.
It was after business hours. They were on the phone with the nurse on the way to the hospital.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:44 pm to eitek1
quote:
2) that was clearly established at the time. The latter part has to have a reasonably on point case that places the issue beyond doubt.
I am guessing you dont know about Birchfield v. North Dakota...
If our Supreme Court rules that you need consent, a warrant, or probable cause for a blood draw, would you say thats clearly established?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 10:52 pm to AbitaFan08
quote:
Goddamn that is one lucky nurse. She's about to get a huge payday.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
I thought you were responding to me. I was confused because I absolutely agree with you and the Birchfield decision. You were disagreeing with the quoted section in my post. I quoted "falseprophet" who is completely wrong.
The cop is personally liable due to 42:1983. On top of that, he's a dumbass a shitty human being and probably a bully.
The cop is personally liable due to 42:1983. On top of that, he's a dumbass a shitty human being and probably a bully.
This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 11:13 pm
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:15 pm to 62Tigerfan
(no message)
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:19 pm to eitek1
No worries, my mistake.This post was edited on 9/1/17 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:26 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
The cop fricked up, but my whole point was that he is protected from this frick up.
Both the cops are under CRIMINAL investigation. LINK
Last year Utah made it a FELONY to assault a health care professional. Their careers are over. They have become a PR liability because if the Dept supports them that Dept. will be seen in a very bad light. They won't let that happen.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:42 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Qualified immunity will apply here. If you find me a case that says a cop clearly violated the law for arresting a nurse who refused to comply because of internal policy, I'll admit I'm wrong.
This is the problem. You're still somehow under the impression that this is about internal policy. It's not. It's about federally established law in which the officer was attempting to violate.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 11:55 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
However, typically if a person is unconscious then they are deemed to consent to giving a sample.
Implied consent in this situation means that, if you are unconscious, then it is implied that you consent to having your blood drawn in order to diagnose and/or treat a life-threatening condition.
The cops can't get a sample of your blood just because they say they need it. These officers screwed up. The arresting officer is too dense to realize it. The officer who comes in after the arrest realizes it but does a horrible job covering his tracks. He mentions multiple times that all of this could have been avoided had the nurse just told the officer that they already had blood in the lab. He states the cops could have just gotten a warrant and accessed those samples had they been told that blood had already been drawn.... Does he think ER's just look at dying people and hope they wake up so we can ask permission to save them?
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:34 am to MDTiger 13
I would think that Mr. Payne's days as an EMT are over also. I doubt that whatever board licenses EMTs in Utah will see him as fit for duty.
Posted on 9/2/17 at 12:52 am to NYNolaguy1
Not of color... no bigot comments
Posted on 9/2/17 at 1:05 am to Salmon
quote:
Nurse should have just done what the cop said, AMIRITE?
Hilary LOST
Hitler Dead
Chavez Dead
WTF? You hate Murica?
Posted on 9/2/17 at 1:18 am to Aristo
quote:
In order to do this, they would have to be able to turn down calls such as my neighbor threw a cigarette butt in my yard and other BS calls they deal with on a daily basis.
I thought LEOs went out everyday not knowing if they will make it home to see their families? I thought the citizen is really a criminal first, who targets every LEO everyday?
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News