Nurse arrested on camera

[Moxie]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/01/health/utah-nurse-arrest-police-video/index.html

 

I mean, whoa. Some police officer was having a bad day or is just a total power hungry monster. I'm shocked that none of the other officers stepped in to stop him. I hope she sues the crap out if him.

[MedicMom]

The other officers weren't police; they were hospital security.

 

All of the LE I know are disgusted by this. It's ridiculous. She was following hospital policy.

[Guest]

The other officers weren't police; they were hospital security.

 

All of the LE I know are disgusted by this. It's ridiculous. She was following hospital policy.

There must have been one other officer there because two people have been placed on leave. Right?

[TeenagerMom]

The other officers weren't police; they were hospital security.

 

All of the LE I know are disgusted by this. It's ridiculous. She was following hospital policy.

 

There were 2 officers present for the arrest. The body cam footage from each of them has been released. Officer #2's video was approximately 20 minutes.  After she was place in the car an ADDITIONAL officer arrived and proceeded to tell her exactly how this all would have been avoided if she had just done the blood draw and if they were illegally taking the blood, the victim has civil recourse to address that and that she was obstructing justice.

 

They admitted that the patient was not under arrest and they did not have a warrant.

[DesertBlossom]

There were 2 officers present for the arrest. The body cam footage from each of them has been released. Officer #2's video was approximately 20 minutes. After she was place in the car an ADDITIONAL officer arrived and proceeded to tell her exactly how this all would have been avoided if she had just done the blood draw and if they were illegally taking the blood, the victim has civil recourse to address that and that she was obstructing justice.

 

They admitted that the patient was not under arrest and they did not have a warrant.

I saw this 2nd video and it's just as mind-blowing as the first. So even if she knows the officer is doing something wrong/illegal, she's supposed to let him do it anyway and then they can clean that mess up later? How about no.

 

ETA: So today it's a vial of blood. Maybe not that big of a deal in the long run. (Then again, maybe it is) But the idea that citizens are supposed to cooperate with a police officer who is doing something illegal, just because they are the police, is all sorts of wrong.

 

That woman had some serious guts and I'm impressed.

Edited September 2, 2017 by DesertBlossom

[mathnerd]

Police officers are public servants whose job is to serve their community. American justice system is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty - which applied to the unconscious person in the hospital. If that officer was trained well on these two concepts, then he (and his boss) would not have obstructed an emergency room nurse from doing her job of saving lives. And she would not have had to suffer police brutality. Interesting to watch what the reaction of the nurse's union towards the police union will be.

 

Curious question about the law: Once an officer arrests a person, does he have the power to release that person for whatever reason? I assumed that only a judge can rule that an arrested person could be released or not.

[kroe1]

What scared me about this was thinking of all the other patients facing the repercussions of a nursing shortage in the ER that night. ERs already operate at skeleton staff. Losing just one nurse in a shift can be detrimental.

 

Nonetheless, police and ERs must work together very closely. I hope this does not affect the 99.9999% of great interactions between law enforcement and emergency medical services.

[Guest]

She has said that she's not suing, and indicated that that is actually "I'm not suing right now" and she wants the PD to handle it WELL themselves, or it's still an option.

 

Does anyone understand why he even wanted a blood draw from that guy? He was the innocent party in the collision.

 

"Because she's the one telling me no." when asked by admin why he's speaking to her that way. Tells us everything we need to know about that man.

Edited September 2, 2017 by OKBud

[creekland]

She has said that she's not suing, and indicated that that is actually "I'm not suing right now" and she wants the PD to handle it WELL themselves, or it's still an option.

 

Does anyone understand why he even wanted a blood draw from that guy? He was the innocent party in the collision.

 

"Because she's the one telling me no." when asked by admin why he's speaking to her that way. Tells us everything we need to know about that man.

 

This is my thought too.  And since it was explained to her that the very innocent man in this situation (he didn't cause the crash) could sue afterward for having his rights violated shows just how much either that particular cop or the department is used to handling things.  This is standard for them.

 

Something is very, very wrong when that's the default way of doing things - she just has to get on board or be roughly arrested herself was their way of thinking. (another wrong)

 

If it's not just that one officer (and he gets dealt with appropriately - fired), then I would definitely sue in order to both fix that system and let anywhere else this sort of thing is happening be aware that their actions can be costly.

 

I heard a report that the officer involved said he was following directions.  If so, it's not just him.  It's that whole system and "how they do things."  Fix it - and let other potentially similar systems see it happen and how much it costs.

 

FWIW, NOT all systems are like that.  My cousin is a PO and often tells of having to get warrants... It's just what you do if needed.  In this case, I find it doubtful that it was even needed since the man wasn't at fault - no need to check his blood.

[Lisa R.]

That nurse is a hero. The easy way to end the conflict would have been to draw the blood. She's calling supervisors, checking into hospital policy while being pressured by the law enforcement officer. She stood her ground because she didn't want to violate the patient's rights. She stood up to his bullying to the end to protect the unconscious patient.

 

If there's a Nurse of the Year award in that state, she should get it.

[Xahm]

Curious question about the law: Once an officer arrests a person, does he have the power to release that person for whatever reason? I assumed that only a judge can rule that an arrested person could be released or not.

Based on what my dh says, and this may be different in different jurisdictions, any time the police keep you somewhere and you are not allowed to leave, you are technically under arrest. So not when they are asking you questions and you are allowed to walk away if you want, but when you get pulled over for speeding, you've technically been arrested and released on a signature bond. (When you sign the ticket, it's a signature bond. Many people try to refuse to sign because they think it's an admission of guilt off something; it's a promise to either pay the fine or show up for court and if you don't sign, the officer has to take you to jail to see a judge for a cash bond.)

All that to say, yes, the police can arrest and then release a person. They do it all the time. Sometimes they come up on a domestic disturbance situation and have to first arrest everyone so they can make the situation safe. They investigate a few moments, and then they can release most folks.

[Danestress]

Based on what my dh says, and this may be different in different jurisdictions, any time the police keep you somewhere and you are not allowed to leave, you are technically under arrest. So not when they are asking you questions and you are allowed to walk away if you want, but when you get pulled over for speeding, you've technically been arrested and released on a signature bond.

I think your husband is confusing 'arresting' and 'detaining.' An officer can detain someone with "reasonable suspicion." The person is not free to leave, but the encounter isn't necessarily an arrest. When you get a speeding ticket, you are detained but not arrested. Refusing to sign the ticket, however, can result in an arrest. An arrest requires probable cause.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Danestress

[Janeway]

I think that nurse is a hero for doing the right thing despite the attack she is under.

[Janeway]

But, while I do think she did the right thing, I also wonder what he did. I have a friend whose children died after a guy on drugs smashed in to her car. Apparently, no one did a drug screen on him so he was never tried for the under the influence part. But I know someone else whose child was plowed over and killed (while on a playground, he damaged the playground equipment too) by a man on drugs. He did have a drug screen and still, he got a very short prison term and a couple years of a suspended license and then allowed to drive again. Using drugs and a car for murder seems to be a way to get out of appropriate punishment. This makes me incredibly angry.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Janeway

[Valley Girl]

I think your husband is confusing 'arresting' and 'detaining.' An officer can detain someone with "reasonable suspicion." The person is not free to leave, but the encounter isn't necessarily an arrest. When you get a speeding ticket, you are detained but not arrested. Refusing to sign the ticket, however, can result in an arrest. An arrest requires probable cause.

 

And anytime you are actually under arrest, are you not required to be mirandized?

[Xahm]

I think your husband is confusing 'arresting' and 'detaining.' An officer can detain someone with "reasonable suspicion." The person is not free to leave, but the encounter isn't necessarily an arrest. When you get a speeding ticket, you are detained but not arrested. Refusing to sign the ticket, however, can result in an arrest. An arrest requires probable cause.

 

I think he's using the technical, legal definition for our area. I agree that they are not what would be called "arrested" in the common vernacular, but police aren't allowed to just "detain" anyone they want without probable cause. If an officer pulls over a car without probable cause, they are acting outside the law (unless it is part of a sweep where every car, or every third car, etc is being stopped.)

[Xahm]

And anytime you are actually under arrest, are you not required to be mirandized?

No, that's a thing you see on tv that doesn't really reflect reality. 

[ErinE]

But, while I do think she did the right thing, I also wonder what he did. I have a friend whose children died after a guy on drugs smashed in to her car. Apparently, no one did a drug screen on him so he was never tried for the under the influence part. But I know someone else whose child was plowed over and killed (while on a playground, he damaged the playground equipment too) by a man on drugs. He did have a drug screen and still, he got a very short prison term and a couple years of a suspended license and then allowed to drive again. Using drugs and a car for murder seems to be a way to get out of appropriate punishment. This makes me incredibly angry.

The patient did nothing. He was the victim. It was a high speed car chase and the suspect crossed over into oncoming traffic and plowed into his truck. I've seen the video. There was no way the patient could have avoided the accident. Though the police department claims they were trying to test the blood for his own protection, some commenters have suggested it was to prevent the patient from suing the police who chased the suspect. Other people, claiming to be nurses, have said that they would have given him pain medications at the accident scene making the blood draw results invalid anyways.

[Guest]

Miranda is only required when you are under interrogation and in custody. Not upon every arrest.

 

ETA--usually when you're being arrested they know what they need to know to make a court case already, and couldn't care less what you have to say or not say so miranda rights are not a factor anyway. The miranda rights are for interrogation, not being arrested.

Edited September 2, 2017 by OKBud

[HomeAgain]

The story on NPR had a disturbing last line referencing the police chief:
"He said that the department "took steps to ensure this will never happen again," including changing its blood draw policy."

Was the officer following policy?  What was the previous policy, and why did it seem to go against medical practices?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/01/547840028/-somebody-help-me-utah-nurse-cried-as-police-detective-roughly-arrested-her

[Guest]

The patient did nothing. He was the victim. It was a high speed car chase and the suspect crossed over into oncoming traffic and plowed into his truck. I've seen the video. There was no way the patient could have avoided the accident. Though the police department claims they were trying to test the blood for his own protection, some commenters have suggested it was to prevent the patient from suing the police who chased the suspect. Other people, claiming to be nurses, have said that they would have given him pain medications at the accident scene making the blood draw results invalid anyways.

Well, that makes so much sense. Of course the guy was frantic to get the blood if his bosses were trying to keep from being sued. Disgusting.

 

Also, had the nurse illegally given them the blood, wouldn't she open herself and her hospital to a potential lawsuit from the burn victim?

Edited September 2, 2017 by Moxie

[Valley Girl]

No, that's a thing you see on tv that doesn't really reflect reality. 

 

Hmm...OK. I'll have to check back with my LEO family. I've been told of arrests being thrown out because the person wasn't properly mirandized at the time. Thanks for the info.

[gardenmom5]

from everything I have seen - this should come back to bite his pattootie.    he stuck her in the back of the police car - but that's as far as it went.  she was subsequently released about 20 minutes later.  he deserves to be fired.  she's more gracious than I would be.    he also should be fired from his second job as an ambulance driver.

 

she was following procedures established by the hospital that had been agreed to by the police dept. the patient was the victim in a crash - NOT the guy who caused the accident!

[gardenmom5]

There were 2 officers present for the arrest. The body cam footage from each of them has been released. Officer #2's video was approximately 20 minutes.  After she was place in the car an ADDITIONAL officer arrived and proceeded to tell her exactly how this all would have been avoided if she had just done the blood draw and if they were illegally taking the blood, the victim has civil recourse to address that and that she was obstructing justice.

 

They admitted that the patient was not under arrest and they did not have a warrant.

well - that's explains why two are on leave.   this is disgusting.

 

 

 

The patient did nothing. He was the victim. It was a high speed car chase and the suspect crossed over into oncoming traffic and plowed into his truck. I've seen the video. There was no way the patient could have avoided the accident. Though the police department claims they were trying to test the blood for his own protection, some commenters have suggested it was to prevent the patient from suing the police who chased the suspect. Other people, claiming to be nurses, have said that they would have given him pain medications at the accident scene making the blood draw results invalid anyways.

 

if he'd been treated by paramedics at the scene - and if he was so badly injured he is in a coma the answer is a likely yes - any screen would be invalid.

[ErinE]

Well, that makes so much sense. Of course the guy was frantic to get the blood if his bosses were trying to keep from being sued. Disgusting.

 

Also, had the nurse illegally given them the blood, wouldn't she open herself and her hospital to a potential lawsuit from the burn victim?

 

From my understanding, yes. After the nurse is detained, another officer approaches and tells her why it's no big deal, that if the blood draw was wrong, it will get sorted out later. No problem - except you've opened up the hospital and nurse to lawsuits for violating the patient's rights.

 

The second officer definitely deserves to be fired. I think a case could be made the first officer needs additional training (not that I'm arguing for that situation). But the second LEO supported outright breaking the law. Advocating for "take-backsies" is extremely unprofessional and reveals a dangerous mindset.

Edited September 2, 2017 by ErinE

[momacacia]

Saw the video. So glad we have those for people like that officer! All I can say is, he should and hopefully never will work again and she'll never have to work again if she doesn't want to.

 

I think it's a tremendous mistake for her to not sue in a situation like this. The prohibitive and instructive nature of a lawsuit can be very valuable for situatuons just like this.

Edited September 2, 2017 by momacacia

[ErinE]

from everything I have seen - this should come back to bite his pattootie.    he stuck her in the back of the police car - but that's as far as it went.  she was subsequently released about 20 minutes later.  he deserves to be fired.  she's more gracious than I would be.    he also should be fired from his second job as an ambulance driver.

 

she was following procedures established by the hospital that had been agreed to by the police dept. the patient was the victim in a crash - NOT the guy who caused the accident!

 

It's not as far as it went. While she was sitting in the car, handcuffed, another officer approached and badgered her, claiming the legality of the blood draw could get sorted out later. See my prior post. In my opinion, officer #2 deserves to be fired.

Edited September 2, 2017 by ErinE

[gardenmom5]

From my understanding, yes. After the nurse is detained, another officer approaches and tells her why it's no big deal, that if the blood draw was wrong, it will get sorted out later. No problem - except you've opened up the hospital and nurse to lawsuits for violating the patient's rights.

 

The second officer definitely deserves to be fired. I think a case could be made the first officer needs additional training (not that I'm arguing for that situation). But the second LEO supported outright breaking the law. Advocating for "take-backsies" is extremely unprofessional and reveals a dangerous mindset.

 

'cause I'm gonna trust a cop to know the law more than a lawyer.  not. (hospitals have lawyers, and I'm sure the staff were consulting those lawyers)   the first officer is the one who cuffed her and threw her in the back of a squad car while  telling her and other hospital staff he was an ambulance driver in his 2nd job and he'd bring them all the drunks.

 

**I won't go into my experience with hospitals and lawyers - but if there is ANY question regarding patient's rights (even at midnight) - the dr's will be on the phone with them very fast. 

 

It's not as far as it went. While she was sitting in the car, handcuffed, another officer approached and badgered her, claiming the legality of the blood draw could get sorted out later. See my prior post. In my opinion, officer #2 deserves to be fired.

 

you left off the "too".  they BOTH deserve to be fired.    it does explain why two cops are on leave . . . .

[Murphy101]

Alas, in our country the only real way to effect change is via lawsuits, so for that reason, I hope she, the hospital, and the patient (should the poor man live to to do so - he was in a coma!) sue the every living crap out of the 2 cops and the police dept.

[Guest]

Thank goodness for the body camera. Who would ever believe this nonesense if we couldn't see it?!?

[ErinE]

'cause I'm gonna trust a cop to know the law more than a lawyer.  not. (hospitals have lawyers, and I'm sure the staff were consulting those lawyers)   the first officer is the one who cuffed her and threw her in the back of a squad car while  telling her and other hospital staff he was an ambulance driver in his 2nd job and he'd bring them all the drunks.

 

**I won't go into my experience with hospitals and lawyers - but if there is ANY question regarding patient's rights (even at midnight) - the dr's will be on the phone with them very fast. 

 

 

you left off the "too".  they BOTH deserve to be fired.    it does explain why two cops are on leave . . . .

 

I admit I forgot about the bolded. I'm not saying the first officer should keep his job. I just think it's extremely clear that the second a cop argues for breaking the law, he needs to find employment elsewhere.

[gardenmom5]

I admit I forgot about the bolded. I'm not saying the first officer should keep his job. I just think it's extremely clear that the second a cop argues for breaking the law, he needs to find employment elsewhere.

 

I agree the 2nd needs to lose his job - as does the first one.

[Danestress]

I think he's using the technical, legal definition for our area. I agree that they are not what would be called "arrested" in the common vernacular, but police aren't allowed to just "detain" anyone they want without probable cause. If an officer pulls over a car without probable cause, they are acting outside the law (unless it is part of a sweep where every car, or every third car, etc is being stopped.)

Police officers can detain upon reasonable suspicion - that is a different standard from probable cause needed for an arrest. A Terry stop is not an arrest. It is a detention. Different standards, different constitutional protection. The Supreme Court distinguishes between detention and arrest too - it's not just a 'vernacular' distinction.

[caedmyn]

Can't quote on my phone, Reluctant Homeschooler, but it's not the arrest that would be thrown out, it's a confession or whatever statements were made, which could lead to the charge being dropped if there's not enough other evidence. You can't actually "throw out" an arrest though that might be the way they're wording it...the officer can unarrest someone if they're not yet at the jail, or a judge can release them, or if charges are dropped, which would typically be done by the prosecuting attorney, they would be released. Most arrests don't require Miranda warnings, because most of the time the person isn't being interrogated.

[brehon]

That officer now has nurses out to get him for his illegal actions, EMS on his tail for bringing us into his little power play, and ER docs on him for messing with the first two groups.

 

Ambulance driver, indeed. What a dumb f---!!

[ErinE]

This is terrible. The second cop claims the blood needs to be drawn then they'll get a warrant to test it. That's not how it works. Without a warrant, they can't do a blood draw.

 

Video below. It's appalling.

 

Unedited Video of explaining cop. See 15:30 for his terrible comments about search warrants. "There's a very bad habit up here of your policy interfering with my law."

 

Found from Reason website. I know it's a political website but it's how I found the unedited video. I wanted to give credit where it's due.

 

ETA: Corrected link.

Edited September 2, 2017 by ErinE

[Xahm]

Police officers can detain upon reasonable suspicion - that is a different standard from probable cause needed for an arrest. A Terry stop is not an arrest. It is a detention. Different standards, different constitutional protection. The Supreme Court distinguishes between detention and arrest too - it's not just a 'vernacular' distinction.

 

 

Okay. I am remembering based on a discussion a while ago, not on personal study. Thanks for clearing it up. 

 

One thing I do know is that some officers are genuinely unaware that you have to have a good cause (I'm avoiding using technical jargon because I'm clearly messing that up :P) to stop a person (either in cars or on foot) and require they stay stopped. Some think you can hold a person for no clear reason while waiting for more information, even if that person asks to leave. There is a lot to cover in the Police Academy, from physical fitness, and skills like police car driving, target practice, basic Spanish, and report writing, to knowledge like procedure, state, local, and federal law, location of key resources, etc. Some things just don't get covered with the depth they deserve (people's constitutional rights! would be a big one).  

 

Any officer ought to know not to do what these officers did, and they should face consequences. However, it sounds like there's also a systemic problem in that police force, as there is in so many. The department needs to take responsibility and change things, not just pay out a huge settlement.

[creekland]

But, while I do think she did the right thing, I also wonder what he did. 

 

Since, as others have already mentioned, he was guilty of absolutely nothing, I doubt they could get a warrant for his blood.  For some reason I can't figure out, the officers decided to press the nurse instead.  It doesn't even make sense to me to think of it due to a lawsuit against the pursuit because with the video (of the crash), even if the innocent guy had been drunk, he wasn't making driving errors showing any fault in the crash.

 

As a PP mentioned, I am incredibly glad there are videos of so much now - otherwise - the world would never know.  It would be "he said, she said" deals and as shown by your post, the police (or doctors/teachers/"professionals" of any type) are often given the benefit of the doubt when it clearly shouldn't be that way in so many cases.

[Guest]

Okay. I am remembering based on a discussion a while ago, not on personal study. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

One thing I do know is that some officers are genuinely unaware that you have to have a good cause (I'm avoiding using technical jargon because I'm clearly messing that up :P) to stop a person (either in cars or on foot) and require they stay stopped. Some think you can hold a person for no clear reason while waiting for more information, even if that person asks to leave. There is a lot to cover in the Police Academy, from physical fitness, and skills like police car driving, target practice, basic Spanish, and report writing, to knowledge like procedure, state, local, and federal law, location of key resources, etc. Some things just don't get covered with the depth they deserve (people's constitutional rights! would be a big one).

 

Any officer ought to know not to do what these officers did, and they should face consequences. However, it sounds like there's also a systemic problem in that police force, as there is in so many. The department needs to take responsibility and change things, not just pay out a huge settlement.

Which is why police everywhere are having trust issues with the community. Everyone trusts nurses.

[Farrar]

In some ways, I found the second video, the one where the other officer mansplains the whole thing to her, to be even worse. The first guy just acts like a thug. She's telling me no, therefore I'm going to grab her, pull her outside, and then arrest her. The second guy comes in and says, basically point blank, that they intended to knowingly violate the man's rights and that she should have knowingly gone along with it, because they have no obligation to ensure his rights before they're violated because he can always sue later. That's just... that's not how that works. The suing afterward is to prevent this crap from happening in the first place. In the heat of a moment, sure, sometimes people have their rights violated, when people are ignorant or feel threatened, yes, sometimes they violate rights. When there's a culture of horrible discrimination, yep, rights violations happen. But this guy seemed to think that he was under no obligation not to violate someone's rights in the first place because they can sue later. He's like the class bully who thinks he can do anything as long as he says, "Sorry, my bad," afterward.

 

I know good people go into law enforcement, but this stuff will keep happening until we change the culture of policing, change how officers are trained to focus on rights, de-escalation, conflict resolution, and respect instead of spending so much time on weapons training. It's just an across the board issue on so many levels, in so many situations.

[ErinE]

Which is why police everywhere are having trust issues with the community. Everyone trusts nurses.

 

Her hands were shaking when she was showing the policy to the officer. She must have been so scared, rightly so. The hospital has said that an administrator will now handle all discussions with police from now on. 

[Danestress]

Okay. I am remembering based on a discussion a while ago, not on personal study. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

One thing I do know is that some officers are genuinely unaware that you have to have a good cause (I'm avoiding using technical jargon because I'm clearly messing that up :P) to stop a person (either in cars or on foot) and require they stay stopped. Some think you can hold a person for no clear reason while waiting for more information, even if that person asks to leave. There is a lot to cover in the Police Academy, from physical fitness, and skills like police car driving, target practice, basic Spanish, and report writing, to knowledge like procedure, state, local, and federal law, location of key resources, etc. Some things just don't get covered with the depth they deserve (people's constitutional rights! would be a big one.

I agree that even in cities like ours that have dedicated police academies with six months of training, there is only so much that can be covered. New officers still have so much to learn, and if we want cops to continue that education and stay up to date on training, we have to have the funds for that (and for more officers so that someone covers shifts to allow for that training). Being a good cop is hard. I have a son at the USMA and a son who is a police officer. People thank my son at the military academy for his service all the time (he doesn't remotely feel he has earned that). Hardly anyone ever just randomly thanks my police officer son. So thank your husband for me! Cops like the one in this story don't help.

 

With respect to the issue of continuing to detain people during a traffic stop, the Supreme Court recently clarified this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

Edited September 2, 2017 by Danestress

[Guest]

Her hands were shaking when she was showing the policy to the officer. She must have been so scared, rightly so. The hospital has said that an administrator will now handle all discussions with police from now on.

She was in a total no-win. Had she resisted or tried in any way to defend herself, she would have been tased, shot, charged with a crime. Had she done what he asked, she and the hospital would be sued and she would be fired. It makes me sick.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Moxie

[Xahm]

Thanks so much for the thanks. Dh is in the National Guard as well, and people thank him for his military service all the time, but almost never for the police. I want to explain that he is paid far better, receives more respect, and is caused less stress by his military job, and the person thanking me is actually much more benefited by his police work. It's usually not social appropriate to complain about someone's thanks, though.

Bad cops and lazy cops really don't help the situation. Things are pretty grim here, to be honest.

 

I agree that even in cities like ours that have dedicated police academies with six months of training, there is only so much that can be covered. New officers still have so much to learn, and if we want cops to continue that education and stay up to date on training, we have to have the funds for that (and for more officers so that someone covers shifts to allow for that training). Being a good cop is hard. I have a son at the USMA and a son who is a police officer. People thank my son at the military academy for his service all the time (he doesn't remotely feel he has earned that). Hardly anyone ever just randomly thanks my police officer son. So thank your husband for me! Cops like the one in this story don't help.

 

With respect to the issue of continuing to detain people during a traffic stop, the Supreme Court recently clarified this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

[caedmyn]

Speaking as former LEO, idk that I believe any officer genuinely doesn't know that they can't just detain people for no reason, or detain them indefinitely. I think some just get on power trips and think they can do what they want, particularly if the culture in that police department tends to support that mentality.

[Danestress]

Am I right to think that the hospital had probably already drawn blood for legitimate treatment reasons? Would a ER check drugs/other substances in a case like this in order, for example, to insure that they don't administer sedative that are dangerous in combination with alcohol?

 

I ask because I question the idea that the officer wanted to protect the patient in a potential civil suit or to protect the police department if there were a suit against it by the patient. I am thinking in either situation, those records would be subpoenaed anyway. Am I wrong?

[Farrar]

Speaking as former LEO, idk that I believe any officer genuinely doesn't know that they can't just detain people for no reason, or detain them indefinitely. I think some just get on power trips and think they can do what they want, particularly if the culture in that police department tends to support that mentality.

 

I think some LEOs come to think that their own emotions are evidence. They don't like, feel insulted by, feel threatened by someone so that's the reason - and some policing cultures support that. So, yeah, I doubt that there are LEOs who think that they're allowed to do anything or who don't know that they have to have a reason to detain or arrest someone or that they have to follow procedures. It's just that their own emotions and biases become their evidence in situations like these.

[ErinE]

Am I right to think that the hospital had probably already drawn blood for legitimate treatment reasons? Would a ER check drugs/other substances in a case like this in order, for example, to insure that they don't administer sedative that are dangerous in combination with alcohol?

 

I ask because I question the idea that the officer wanted to protect the patient in a potential civil suit or to protect the police department if there were a suit against it by the patient. I am thinking in either situation, those records would be subpoenaed anyway. Am I wrong?

 

The officers discuss this exact premise on later video. The arresting officer also says, "I don't think this is arrest is going to stick." Maybe should've thought of that one before arresting a nurse doing her job.

[Xahm]

This is what I meant. Not that any officer would actually say "I can certain anyone at any time with no reason" but that many are not in the habit of thinking, "do I have legal grounds to detain this person?" Instead they keep the person there if it helps the investigation to do so, then try to think up the justification later if they are called on it.

One example I can think of is someone pulling over a car because it looked like a car a drug dealer would have. They did find lots of drugs, but the dealer walked free because the officer claimed he pulled over the car because the tire tread was too worn.

My husband had evidence from a drink driving case thrown out because he read the "informed consent" info from where it was pronged in his department provided ticket book instead of the special card he kept in his pocket (with slightly different wording). He felt bad that he messed up and that that was a very minor technicality, but he understands that it is better to protect people's rights, even if a baddie occasionally walks free because of it. (And he's been pretty anal about using the correct card ever since).

 

I think some LEOs come to think that their own emotions are evidence. They don't like, feel insulted by, feel threatened by someone so that's the reason - and some policing cultures support that. So, yeah, I doubt that there are LEOs who think that they're allowed to do anything or who don't know that they have to have a reason to detain or arrest someone or that they have to follow procedures. It's just that their own emotions and biases become their evidence in situations like these.

[Laurie4b]

It's not as far as it went. While she was sitting in the car, handcuffed, another officer approached and badgered her, claiming the legality of the blood draw could get sorted out later. See my prior post. In my opinion, officer #2 deserves to be fired.

 

Yes, I believe that guy who was being a pompous jerk as a lieutenant. And I read somewhere the guy who made the arrest was told to. 

 

The nurse was following the LAW not just hospital policies. 

 

And if the police department had to change their policies, doesn't that raise the questions about whether their policies contravened the law?