Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Moxie

Nurse arrested on camera

Recommended Posts

I'm really glad there was body cam footage in this case.

 

 

Yes, but it begs the question... if this is what this bully acts like knowing the cameras are ON, how does he act when he knows the cameras are OFF? 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why he wanted the blood sample at all. Can someone explain that to me please?

 

 

I assume he was afraid that law enforcement would be blamed because his accident was the result of a police chase, and was hoping that if he tested positive they could deflect that blame.

 

What they may not have known is he is not only a truck driver, but a reserve police officer in Eastern Idaho. 

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2017/09/rigby-police-chief-thanks-nurse-for-standing-firm-in-protecting-officers-rights/

Edited by Plum Crazy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm also disturbed by people who think cops should be obeyed without question. Do people not care that we actually have rights as citizens of this country?

 

 

 

I agree 100%, and this needs to be re-posted.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this! And I believe he should be arrested for assault and unlawful arrest against her, and charged by internal affairs with anything they can think up. Putting him on national T.V. being sentenced and lead to jail might make a dent in this idea that constitutional rights are like pirate code, "merely guidelines".

 

Or something you pursue justice for after the fact by suing.   

 

It should be a big freaking deal when LEO deliberately disregard Constitutional rights. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but it begs the question... if this is what this bully acts like knowing the cameras are ON, how does he act when he knows the cameras are OFF? 

 

 

And even further, if this is what these bullies act  like knowing the camera is on and they are dealing with a nurse---a white nurse implementing hospital policy (which happens to be consistent with the Constitution) ---how do they act when dealing with POC and/or people without the social status of a nurse? How do they deal with criminals while respecting their Constitutional rights? Oh... yeah... I forgot. They can sue after the fact. Right. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or something you pursue justice for after the fact by suing.

 

It should be a big freaking deal when LEO deliberately disregard Constitutional rights.

And it shouldn't be considered "anti-cop" to call for them to be held accountable.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it shouldn't be considered "anti-cop" to call for them to be held accountable.

 

Exactly.

 

I've worked as a teacher in public schools. I know that most public school teachers are dedicated, hard-working, and underpaid. They sacrifice personal time and finances for the sake of their students. 

 

But if a teacher does something wrong --for instance, disrespects the rights of a student, then yeah, I am going to call that out. And I am talking about THAT teacher. Not the other ones. I don't know why that concept has become so difficult when someone is speaking about LEO.  

 

We need to cull bad apples from the teaching profession, medicine, LEO, etc. 

Edited by Laurie4b
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On top of the egregious abuse of the nurse, I'm bothered by the response from the city and department. The chief of police and mayor claim they hadn't seen the videos until the nurse released them. In this day, that is no excuse and shouldn't be accepted as one. 

 

Any one of these scenarios is unacceptable:

 

  • No one in the department who saw the videos thought they raised any legal issues that required informing the higher ups which indicates it's a poisonous culture and needs a complete overhaul.
  • No one informed the chief of police they had arrested a nurse over a legal dispute which indicates there's a history of hiding problems from higher ups. Complete culture overhaul.
  • The chief of police was informed but wasn't told about the videos which indicates he shouldn't be in the role as that should be one of the first questions asked. Fired.
  • The chief of police was told there were videos but chose not to watch them which indicates he's just setting himself up for plausible deniability. Fired.
  • The chief of police is lying about not having seen the videos. Fired.

All the above indicate that people need to lose their jobs above the two officers in the videos.

Edited by ErinE
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth reposting.

 

I'm disturbed by the number of comments I've seen on news articles and videos about this (not here) from people who think no matter what an LEO tells you to do, you have no right to question it, much less refuse, even if following the order means you are breaking the law.

 

I could not agree more, and it is a sad state of affairs. 

 

That said, some people now have reason to fear for their lives if they dare resist the police, and that is a scary thing.  :(

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you are citing a case about civil revocation of a drivers license. Utah has revised its implied consent laws since this case anyway, but how do you think it applies to this case?

 

The point is that "implied consent," which Payne insisted gave him the right to take blood from the victim, only applies in cases where there is probable cause to believe the driver was actually under the influence— it has never granted police the right to take blood without consent from anyone they choose, for any reason they want. Are you suggesting that at some point there was a law in Utah stating that possession of a Utah driver's license automatically grants police the right to draw your blood at any time for any reason without probable cause?

 

The 2016 Supreme Court ruling stated that even when a suspect has been arrested for DUI, police still need a warrant to draw blood unless there are exceptional circumstances preventing them from getting the warrant in a timely matter. That part doesn't even apply here, because the victim was not under arrest or even suspected of DUI, and Payne stated on camera that he knew he couldn't get a warrant because there was no probable cause. The part of the Court's ruling that applies to this case is that what these cops were trying to do is not only illegal, it's unconstitutional.

 

Even if Payne claims that SLCPD somehow neglected to inform their own phlebotomist about new procedures which the hospital developed in conjunction with SLCPD, his claim that "implied consent" gives him the right to take blood from an unconscious victim without probable cause, let alone a warrant, is indefensible. And the fact that he and his supervisor (Lt. James Tracy) seem to believe that they can get away with it implies that they have, in fact, gotten away with such illegal activity in the past.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that "implied consent," which Payne insisted gave him the right to take blood from the victim, only applies in cases where there is probable cause to believe the driver was actually under the influence— it has never granted police the right to take blood without consent from anyone they choose, for any reason they want.

 

specifically - probable cause that the truck driver (who is a volunteer police officer in eastern idaho) was 1) under the influence of a behavior altering substance,  and 2) (and more important) - that he is suspected of causing/contributing to, the accident (even though he was totally in his lane, and the guy the state patrol had been chasing crossed over the center lane and into oncoming traffic crashing into him head-on.   he's dead.  so the cops can't go after him.)

 

and by the time they wanted his blood - he would have received all sorts of drugs in the course of his treatment.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth reposting.

 

I'm disturbed by the number of comments I've seen on news articles and videos about this (not here) from people who think no matter what an LEO tells you to do, you have no right to question it, much less refuse, even if following the order means you are breaking the law.

 

This greatly disturbs me too.  Some of these folks ought to take a history class - World or US or both.

 

It would also have been good if they'd been taught to THINK rather than blindly follow those they perceive as leaders.  Our world would be a much different (and worse) place if people throughout history hadn't challenged Powers That Be when they saw something WRONG going on (even if the laws were against them at that time).  Even Jesus (and other folks in the Bible) did the same.  Monarchies fell out of favor (politically) when enough people realized it was wrong to give anyone supreme authority to announce an action and have everyone blindly follow it.

 

In an ideal world, that thinking ought to work, but we are far from living in an ideal world.  There are bad apples in every basket.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think SLCPD probably has illegally obtained some patients' blood samples in the past. More than likely from patients in the ED where the staff either was too busy to really notice (it appears the certain LEOs in that department can draw the blood themselves) or "acquiesced" under duress.

 

This is an issue that could affect not just nurses, but also paramedics in my area. The two major EMS systems (one of which I work for) developed policies dealing with this issue. There are some differences; however, the medical directors for the two EMS systems basically said we (EMS) will not draw blood for LE without some fairly onerous (for LE) conditions being met. Most medical directors in my state have said the same thing and have similar policies.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that at some point there was a law in Utah stating that possession of a Utah driver's license automatically grants police the right to draw your blood at any time for any reason without probable cause?

 

The 2016 Supreme Court ruling stated that even when a suspect has been arrested for DUI, police still need a warrant to draw blood unless there are exceptional circumstances preventing them from getting the warrant in a timely matter. That part doesn't even apply here, because the victim was not under arrest or even suspected of DUI, and Payne stated on camera that he knew he couldn't get a warrant because there was no probable cause.

Of course I was not suggesting that. I just thought it was strange you relied on a case affirming the the legality of revoking a drivers license when a suspect refuses a blood test.

 

I don't think anyone can argue in good faith that the officer had authority to order a blood test, with no warrant, on an unconscious patient who couldn't and didn't consent and wasn't not even a suspect, let alone being under arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this is getting news. There are only two points to add that I don't think have been mentioned. If you sue the police officers it will just be paid by the taxpayers in most places. I think this needs to change.

 

Second, yes, hindsight is 20/20 but I really think everyone jumping in would have escalated the situation and there may have been shots fired. Although I haven't seen the longer video but it seems she came away unharmed.

 

I feel very differently about times where someone was actually being beaten. For easy reference because most people know about it I will give as an example the Thomas Kelly case. That people could stand and watch police officers brutally beat a man in that way is hard for me to comprehend. Of course, what I could have done again against 6 armed thugs leaves much to be desired. In that case you wouldn't really be escalting the situation. The police already took care of that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this is getting news. There are only two points to add that I don't think have been mentioned. If you sue the police officers it will just be paid by the taxpayers in most places. I think this needs to change.

 

Second, yes, hindsight is 20/20 but I really think everyone jumping in would have escalated the situation and there may have been shots fired. Although I haven't seen the longer video but it seems she came away unharmed.

 

I feel very differently about times where someone was actually being beaten. For easy reference because most people know about it I will give as an example the Thomas Kelly case. That people could stand and watch police officers brutally beat a man in that way is hard for me to comprehend. Of course, what I could have done again against 6 armed thugs leaves much to be desired. In that case you wouldn't really be escalting the situation. The police already took care of that.

 

I agree. I have a friend that's always talking about how he'd stop police from beating someone of he saw it. All I can think is how much I hope he never sees it because what in the holy heck he thinks he's going to do that doesn't end up with him injured, badly, or worse is beyond me. Though I suppose he thinks it'd worth it- a logic I can not fault.

 

Very salient point about who pays if the police are sued!

 

If the public ends up paying for an officer’s misconduct or alleged misconduct, it seems fair that they’d want the officer and the police department he or she works for to make efforts to keep taxpayers from having to shell out for future settlements or judgments. Instead, we see police departments routinely failing to discipline problematic officers, including those named in lawsuits, even when they may already have a record of misconduct or complaints.

 

We also see departmental inaction as officers across police forces repeatedly face the same accusations of misconduct, either due to violations of policy or because the policies themselves are inappropriate. We see police departments resist reform and transparency, which would cut back on allegations of misconduct, including in false claims officers inevitably face. And we see a system of adjudication that now regularly seeks to settle lawsuits, supposedly saving taxpayer dollars in part by keeping the facts of a misconduct case from going before a jury, which may decide a plaintiff deserves an award larger than the settlement. (Police don’t pay regardless, and this approach coincidentally saves them from further public scrutiny.)

 

 

 

 

 

As a side note, I think some people are groaning dolefully at the *kind* of attention this situation is getting (nearly unanimously condemning the actions of the officer) while other officers leave people dead on the street while the public at large picks apart the actions, past and appearance of the deceased. When we talk about them at all. 815 people killed by police in the US as of September 1, 2017. Some justified (by whatever metric). Some decidedly not. And that's all true whether we have video feed of the shootings or not.

 

We need to absorb this incident into the bigger picture we create in our mind's eyes, is what I am saying. As people have pointed out upthread, this is how he acts with professionals while on video and surrounded by witnesses inside of a hospital full of sick and injured people...

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

An arrest doesn't require a Miranda warning, but if one is not given, then answers to questions asked during that time frame may be inadmissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An arrest doesn't require a Miranda warning, but if one is not given, then answers to questions asked during that time frame may be inadmissible.

 

That makes sense. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think anyone should be fired over this incident without a complete investigation. I saw the video, and no doubt, the behavior was heinous at best. But, we really do not know all the details.

 

Working in an ER, I have seen cops ask for blood a gazillion times in twenty years. In the old days, a hospital form was completed by the officer, the nurse drew the blood with a witness, and the officer walked out with a few tubes of blood in his coat. These tubes were sent to the official crime lab somewhere which ran the tests. This was problematic in that many times nurses ended up having to take off work or miss valuable family time to testify in a court room that they took the blood correctly. When a nurse is doing 5 or so of these a day, it can become a real hassle.

 

I am not sure why, but over the past 10 years or so, I rarely see these legal blood draws. Now the police just asks the nurse or physician if a blood alcohol and/or drug screen was ordered. I am not sure I have ever seen that request refused. I think the medical staff accepts that the police may have more valuable information about the scene of the accident just like the paramedics have. The medical staff would have no way of knowing who was at fault. Many times all the patients are banged up and look like the victims. Many times all the patients come in kicking, screaming, and cursing and acting like the perpetrators. The medical staff really are not judge and jury at that second. They just want everyone to be healthy.

 

In my own hospital, I do not think a nurse would have drawn a legal blood draw on an unconscious patient. But, I am sure she would have added a blood or drug screen order to the hospital orders if a paramedic or police officer mentioned that it might be needed. First, she would not want to give certain medications in the ER if the drug screen was positive for certain things. Second, she would be more careful of giving sedating pain medications if the patient had a high blood alcohol level. She would not be wondering at that second if the patient was a victim or a perpetrator. She would only be thinking of the safety of her patient.

 

In the video, it sounds like the police officer is asking for the formal legal blood draw. It would have taken a second for him to fill out the form and the nurse would have been none the wiser on whether he had the authority he claimed to have on the form. But, it is hard to tell. There is no doubt he was a jerk and lost control. I cannot imagine a situation between police and medical staff escalating to that point. The two groups are kinship, both needing each other immeasurably. I have seen voices raised a little over the years, but, everyone knows just how important they are to each other. It always gets worked out quickly and without incident.

 

I can tell you, even in my little capacity in the ER, that many times it is an extremely dangerous place. Patients and family can become violent quicklY. I have seen gang retaliation which catches everyone off guard. It is what it is. But, bottom line, the ER needs local law enforcement quickly many times a week. Likewise, law enforcement needs ERs to medically clear those arrested, give information helpful to the investigation of crimes, help injured officers, etc. Therefore, I hope this matter gets investigated and settled quickly. And I hope it does not damage the symbiotic relationship between emergency medicine and law enforcement.

 

Every once in a while one of the two factions acts really stupid. I remember a lawyer once demanding a doctor come out of a room where blood was gushing and the doctor was desperately trying to sew the arterial bleeds. The lawyer was mad that he had not had papers served because the doctor kept dodging the officer who had been sent to serve the papers. The lawyer was bound and determined he was going to serve those papers himself that second. It was an escalation with nurses standing guard and officers brought in to help, but, the doctor and lawyer ended up friends in the end. I think the case was extremely frustrating for the lawyer and he did not understand the magnitude of the current patient's condition at the time. As far as I know, everything ended OK without a national news video. The lawyer was not fired, but, got a conviction on the case he was working on, and the doctor learned not to dodge subpoenas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the video, it sounds like the police officer is asking for the formal legal blood draw. It would have taken a second for him to fill out the form and the nurse would have been none the wiser on whether he had the authority he claimed to have on the form. But, it is hard to tell. There is no doubt he was a jerk and lost control. I cannot imagine a situation between police and medical staff escalating to that point. The two groups are kinship, both needing each other immeasurably. I have seen voices raised a little over the years, but, everyone knows just how important they are to each other. It always gets worked out quickly and without incident.

 

 

No, the blood draw was illegal as per the Supreme Court ruling of last year. As a police officer he should have been trained on the change (prior to that ruling many states had implied consent laws that would have allowed it). The patient was unconscious. There was no probable cause. There was no warrant. According to the SCOTUS that would be a violation of the fourth amendment. The officer was wrong. 100%. He wanted the nurse to do something illegal and arrested her (or tried to) because she wouldn't go along with his illegal action.

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the video, it sounds like the police officer is asking for the formal legal blood draw. It would have taken a second for him to fill out the form and the nurse would have been none the wiser on whether he had the authority he claimed to have on the form. But, it is hard to tell. There is no doubt he was a jerk and lost control. I cannot imagine a situation between police and medical staff escalating to that point. The two groups are kinship, both needing each other immeasurably. I have seen voices raised a little over the years, but, everyone knows just how important they are to each other. It always gets worked out quickly and without incident.

 

The "form" that is legally required is a warrant, and the cop admitted he couldn't get one because there was no probable cause — there was zero evidence that the victim was driving under the influence. He had no legal grounds whatsoever for requesting the blood draw, and even if there was probable cause (evidence of DUI), he would still have needed a warrant before the nurse could draw blood. Since he knew he couldn't get what he wanted legally, he tried to force the nurse to break the law by threatening, bullying, and eventually assaulting her. 

 

And frankly I find your suggestion that this would have worked out better if the cop had obtained access by deception (filling out a form pretending he did have the authority for the blood draw in order to fool the nurse into doing it) quite disturbing. You are advocating violation of an unconscious patient's constitutional rights in order to comply with an illegal police order — that was almost certainly motivated by a desire to blame an innocent victim for a crash the police were partially responsible for.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "form" that is legally required is a warrant, and the cop admitted he couldn't get one because there was no probable cause — there was zero evidence that the victim was driving under the influence. He had no legal grounds whatsoever for requesting the blood draw, and even if there was probable cause (evidence of DUI), he would still have needed a warrant before the nurse could draw blood. Since he knew he couldn't get what he wanted legally, he tried to force the nurse to break the law by threatening, bullying, and eventually assaulting her.

 

And frankly I find your suggestion that this would have worked out better if the cop had obtained access by deception (filling out a form pretending he did have the authority for the blood draw in order to fool the nurse into doing it) quite disturbing. You are advocating violation of an unconscious patient's constitutional rights in order to comply with an illegal police order — that was almost certainly motivated by a desire to blame an innocent victim for a crash the police were partially responsible for.

I might be misunderstanding what Minnie said but I don't think she is advocating for the cop to do that. She said he could have done it and the nurse wouldnt have known he wasn't authorized.

 

I took it as Minnie pointing out a glitch in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it shouldn't be considered "anti-cop" to call for them to be held accountable.

 

It is PRO-cop to want them well trained and to have clear protocol for a wide variety of situations and full understanding of the law.  European police do much better than American police.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be misunderstanding what Minnie said but I don't think she is advocating for the cop to do that. She said he could have done it and the nurse wouldnt have known he wasn't authorized.

 

I took it as Minnie pointing out a glitch in the system.

The nurse mentions an e-warrant is required so it sounds like (it would be the correct course of action before infringing on a patient's rights) the nurse would see the warrant before making the draw.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nurse mentions an e-warrant is required so it sounds like (it would be the correct course of action before infringing on a patient's rights) the nurse would see the warrant before making the draw.

Are you explaining what Minnie thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be misunderstanding what Minnie said but I don't think she is advocating for the cop to do that. She said he could have done it and the nurse wouldnt have known he wasn't authorized.

 

I took it as Minnie pointing out a glitch in the system.

 

But there is no glitch in that part of the system — the hospital has a clear, written policy, developed by their legal staff in compliance with the law and which the SLCPD had already signed off on, which spells out exactly what is required in order to authorize a legal blood draw. The glitch in the system is that an asshole cop bullied and assaulted a nurse for not allowing him to do an illegal blood draw for which he had no authority.

 

And apparently the supervisor (Lt. Tracy) who had ordered the arrest, stood outside the hospital discussing with Det. Payne the possibility of just marching up to the patient's room and taking the blood without permission, but Payne said he believed the hospital staff was too hostile towards him at that point for him to be able to do that. Lt. Tracy even told the nurse that she should have complied with the illegal order, and the patient could have just sued afterwards if he was mad about it. So Minnie's suggestion is not far off of what these cops planned to do — lie about having the authority to obtain something they had no right to, and just let the lawyers sort it out later.

 

Nope. Police authority NEVER trumps constitutional rights. Their job is to protect our rights, not purposely violate them in the hope of covering their asses and blaming an innocent victim.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is no glitch in that part of the system — the hospital has a clear, written policy, developed by their legal staff in compliance with the law and which the SLCPD had already signed off on, which spells out exactly what is required in order to authorize a legal blood draw. The glitch in the system is that an asshole cop bullied and assaulted a nurse for not allowing him to do an illegal blood draw for which he had no authority.

 

And apparently the supervisor (Lt. Tracy) who had ordered the arrest, stood outside the hospital discussing with Det. Payne the possibility of just marching up to the patient's room and taking the blood without permission, but Payne said he believed the hospital staff was too hostile towards him at that point for him to be able to do that. Lt. Tracy even told the nurse that she should have complied with the illegal order, and the patient could have just sued afterwards if he was mad about it. So Minnie's suggestion is not far off of what these cops planned to do — lie about having the authority to obtain something they had no right to, and just let the lawyers sort it out later.

 

Nope. Police authority NEVER trumps constitutional rights. Their job is to protect our rights, not purposely violate them in the hope of covering their asses and blaming an innocent victim.

I think I'll just wait to see if Minnie comes back and says what she meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nurse mentions an e-warrant is required so it sounds like (it would be the correct course of action before infringing on a patient's rights) the nurse would see the warrant before making the draw.

 

 

Are you explaining what Minnie thought?

 

No, I'm saying the nurse explains to the cop what's required for a blood draw. The authorization to draw blood without the patient giving consent is the patient being under arrest (condition not met) or an e-warrant sent to the hospital (condition not met). The cop filling out a form saying he has authorization means nothing in this incident.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying the nurse explains to the cop what's required for a blood draw. The authorization to draw blood without the patient giving consent is the patient being under arrest (condition not met) or an e-warrant sent to the hospital (condition not met). The cop filling out a form saying he has authorization means nothing in this incident.

Well, thanks but I am wondering what Minnie meant and I'm waiting for Minnie to clarify (if she wants to or even feels like it).

Edited by unsinkable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I meant the police officer could have forged the paperwork and the nurse would not have been the wiser. I am not advocating that he do that, just that it could easily be done. ERs are incredibly fast moving, stressful worlds. Many times I's and T's unfortunately get overlooked. I was just saying that the aggressiveness of the officer could have easily been avoided.

 

What still is in question, though, is the usual practice of the ER. If the police were used to someone abiding by their requests without question, then I may understand why the officer escalated (although not to the point he did). I was trying to mention, that requests from officers are granted all the time in ERs. I am not sure if anyone reads the 20,000 pages of hospital documents and protocols, especially if the hospital policy had recently changed like the news article alludes to. (Maybe the staff does know every hospital protocol, I am just speculating. I am a nobody and not privy to such things.). Bottom line, even the nurse and especially the officer probably would have acted a lot differently if they had known their faces would be planted on national news. Normally, a nurse would not have to be explaining hospital protocol to an officer if there were problems. An administrator gets called in from home to handle such situations or, at the very least, the hospital supervisor would have taken over, not the nurse who draws blood.

 

I am merely trying to explain my prior observations of similar scenarios, not to condone any behavior of the national news case. I wasn't there. The video I saw did not show the initial conversations between the nurse and officer so important parts may not be there. I just saw the point where she is already talking to a hospital administrator. Nor, do we know the usual practices of the nurses and prior experiences of those officers with the staff. We do not even know if the nurse knew the details of the accident at that point. Furthermore, we do not know where the physician was in all of this. He is ultimately responsible for what goes on.

Edited by Minniewannabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a sort of flow chart showing the process for legally obtaining a blood sample from a DUI suspect:

1. Is there evidence that the suspect may have been driving under the influence?
     a. NO — Police have no right to request a blood draw. End of story.
     b. YES —Proceed to #2

 

2. Has the suspect consented to a blood test?

     a. YES — Proceed to draw blood

     b. NO — Proceed to #3

 

3. Can a warrant be obtained in a timely manner?
     a. YES — Obtain a warrant and proceed to draw blood
     b. NO — Proceed to #4

 

4. Is the sole reason for trying to obtain the blood sample without a warrant the fact that BAC content deteriorates fairly quickly?
   a. YES — This factor alone does not constitute "exigent circumstances" and cannot be used to justify warrantless blood draws. Obtain a warrant.
  b. NO —Proceed to #5

 

5. Are there significant factors preventing police from obtaining a warrant in a timely manner (such as being in a remote area, technological glitch preventing access to e-warrant system) or other circumstances that would require a blood draw before a warrant could be obtained (e.g. suspect shows evidence of DUI *and* is injured and being treated at the scene *and* police need to obtain an immediate blood sample before possible contamination)?
  a. YES — Then police may proceed with a warrantless blood draw, but should be prepared for possible court challenges.
   b. NO — Then go back and get a warrant.

 

 

The two factors that Payne repeatedly cited as giving him authority to do the blood draw were "implied consent" and "exigent circumstances." Implied consent only applies if the person is suspected of DUI, which the victim was not. In addition to stating that there was no probable cause, he further undercut his own argument by claiming that they wanted the blood to prove the victim was not under the influence. They have no right to force someone who has demonstrated no evidence of DUI to provide blood to prove their own innocence! 

 

As for "exigent circumstances," the law clearly states that the "evanescent nature" of drugs and alcohol in the blood cannot, by itself, be used as an excuse for drawing blood without a warrant. None of the criteria for "exigent circumstances" were met in this case — the fact that no judge would give Payne a warrant based on zero evidence does not constitute grounds for doing it without a warrant!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I meant the police officer could have forged the paperwork and the nurse would not have been the wiser. I am not advocating that he do that, just that it could easily be done. ERs are incredibly fast moving, stressful worlds. Many times I's and T's unfortunately get overlooked. I was just saying that the aggressiveness of the officer could have easily been avoided.

 

What still is in question, though, is the usual practice of the ER. If the police were used to someone abiding by their requests without question, then I may understand why the officer escalated (although not to the point he did). I was trying to mention, that requests from officers are granted all the time in ERs. I am not sure if anyone reads the 20,000 pages of hospital documents and protocols, especially if the hospital policy had recently changed like the news article alludes to. (Maybe the staff does know every hospital protocol, I am just speculating. I am a nobody and not privy to such things.). Bottom line, even the nurse and especially the officer probably would have acted a lot differently if they had known their faces would be planted on national news. Normally, a nurse would not have to be explaining hospital protocol to an officer if there were problems. An administrator gets called in from home to handle such situations or, at the very least, the hospital supervisor would have taken over, not the nurse who draws blood.

 

I am merely trying to explain my prior observations of similar scenarios, not to condone any behavior of the national news case. I wasn't there. The video I saw did not show the initial conversations between the nurse and officer so important parts may not be there. I just saw the point where she is already talking to a hospital administrator. Nor, do we know the usual practices of the nurses and prior experiences of those officers with the staff. We do not even know if the nurse knew the details of the accident at that point. Furthermore, we do not know where the physician was in all of this. He is ultimately responsible for what goes on.

 

Thanks Minnie. I didn't think you were condoning what the officer did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, first, the officer didn't want the nurse to draw blood, or add an extra test. He wanted to draw the blood himself. He was refused access. 

 

Second, I believe this was not the ER, but the burn unit. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I meant the police officer could have forged the paperwork and the nurse would not have been the wiser. I am not advocating that he do that, just that it could easily be done. ERs are incredibly fast moving, stressful worlds. Many times I's and T's unfortunately get overlooked. I was just saying that the aggressiveness of the officer could have easily been avoided.

 

Payne would have had to forge a judge's signature on an electronic warrant — which I sure hope cannot be "easily done"! 

 

 

If the police were used to someone abiding by their requests without question, then I may understand why the officer escalated (although not to the point he did)...

 The behavior of both of the suspended cops suggests that they are used to getting their way through bullying and intimidation. If they have successfully used these tactics to obtain illegal blood tests in the past, that is not a mitigating factor in this case — it is a further incriminating factor.

 

Nor, do we know the usual practices of the nurses and prior experiences of those officers with the staff. We do not even know if the nurse knew the details of the accident at that point. 

 

It doesn't matter whether the nurse knew that the patient in this case was an innocent victim, or if she thought he was the criminal who was running from the police — everyone has constitutional rights and deserves equal protection under the law.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the mayor's statement that is available on the SLC Police facebook page, the investigation has been ongoing since twelve hours after the incident.  The cop (singular) was removed from the blood draw program and then steps were taken to put him on leave.

 

So.......5 weeks later, there still isn't a resolution?  How long does the investigation process usually take when there is clear evidence?  I'm seriously asking, because this is looking ridiculous the more it drags on and more information is made public.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the mayor's statement that is available on the SLC Police facebook page, the investigation has been ongoing since twelve hours after the incident.  The cop (singular) was removed from the blood draw program and then steps were taken to put him on leave.

 

So.......5 weeks later, there still isn't a resolution?  How long does the investigation process usually take when there is clear evidence?  I'm seriously asking, because this is looking ridiculous the more it drags on and more information is made public.

 

Honestly I don't think they planned to do anything other than sweep it under the rug — which is exactly why the nurse got frustrated and released the video. I don't believe for a minute that the police chief removed Payne from the blood draw program and ordered an investigation — yet knew nothing of the existence of the video? I think his faux outrage at the video is entirely a response to the media backlash. And apparently the DA first saw the video when the public did, and is now looking into the possibility of criminal charges — something that should have been done form the start.

 

Ironically, one of the things the nurse seemed most frustrated about wasn't even her treatment by Payne, it was the refusal of the University of Utah police (security? I've seen them referred to both ways) to stand up to Payne and protect her from what was clearly assault and unlawful arrest. She expressed frustration that they did not seem to take the incident seriously or plan to change their protocol, leaving her and other medical staff vulnerable in future interactions with police. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what it's like at that hospital, but at dh's hospital security is mostly retired cops.

eta: he also said there's a few that could be knocked over with a feather. 

Edited by Plum Crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This nurse is my hero. Nurses put up with stress from outside sources that many of us cannot even begin to imagine. If they only had to care for their patients their jobs would be easier. However, they are masters at conflict resolution (most situations don't escalate and are managed bedside), negotiations, resource management, regulations (the reason that nurse contacted superiors and printed the policy was because she did know that police have to meet criteria for blood draws), scheduling and advocacy. In addition to that, they know an amazing amount about medicine. Rock on, RN's!

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, one of the things the nurse seemed most frustrated about wasn't even her treatment by Payne, it was the refusal of the University of Utah police (security? I've seen them referred to both ways) to stand up to Payne and protect her from what was clearly assault and unlawful arrest. She expressed frustration that they did not seem to take the incident seriously or plan to change their protocol, leaving her and other medical staff vulnerable in future interactions with police.

This is a huge issue, all kinds of crap happens in hospitals. Most people have no idea.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a huge issue, all kinds of crap happens in hospitals. Most people have no idea.

 

I agree with this.

 

Also it's worth pointing out that this apparently happened in the burn unit, not the ER. I'm guessing that the burn unit does not routinely deal with requests for blood draws, and that cop is familiar to ER staff and used to getting his way. For better or for worse, the ER is just a totally different place than the rest of the hospital.

 

Also, did he seriously refer to himself as an "ambulance driver"? No. Just...no, on so many levels.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Payne has now been fired from his paramedic job due to his comments about retaliating against the hospital by taking all the transients there and taking the "good patients" to other hospitals. Hopefully SLCPD will do the same in the near future.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Payne has now been fired from his paramedic job due to his comments about retaliating against the hospital by taking all the transients there and taking the "good patients" to other hospitals. Hopefully SLCPD will do the same in the near future.

As if what he did to the nurse wasn't bad enough this showed just what kind of a human being he is. I hope he gets fired from the PD as well.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I meant the police officer could have forged the paperwork and the nurse would not have been the wiser. I am not advocating that he do that, just that it could easily be done. ERs are incredibly fast moving, stressful worlds.

 

not in the ER- she was the charge nurse in the burn unit.  so, he'd not only been admitted - he would likely have been on narcotics for pain.  (but hey, all the better for the cops who chased a fleeing felon until he crashed into the victim's truck.   hey - the victim had narcotics in his system - it's not the cops fault for chasing a felon to the point he caused an accident.  - I"m being sarcastic.)

 

I could imagine the security (aka: rent a cop - we have low opinions of our area transit "cops/security".  all they do is call the real cops - even if something is happening right in front of them. -including a teenage girl beaten to a pulp - they don't get involved. supposedly their "security" contractor employer has told them not to.) were afraid of what the cops would do to them.  doesn't excuse them for being so easily intimidated - especially if they were naive enough to think the cops were right, and the nurse was wrong.   they need more training - and possibly policies in place for when it does get to that type of situation.

 

This is a huge issue, all kinds of crap happens in hospitals. Most people have no idea.

 

I've been involved with some (my brother.  good. night.  :svengo: )

the drs were calling the (not major) hospital's lawyers and consulting on what to do about him - at MIDNIGHT!   hospital security was standing by to "escort him out" - but if he'd put up a fuss, they would have called the real cops. .. so yeah

 

my point - UofU is a medical school - it's a major hospital/trauma center.  they should have a legal team available at all hours.

 

I'm glad she went public - because it does sound like the slcpd chief would just ignore it until it went away.  glad the DA is ticked off and pursing this.

 

eta: my brother totally snowed a nurse - who then got involved.  she should have stayed. out. of. it.!  if I knew then what I know now - I would have reported her to her superiors.  in her naivety, she exacerbated a bad situation.  the drs were looking to throw him out based entirely upon their own observation of his manipulation.  I was at home.

Edited by gardenmom5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news:
 

The University of Utah Hospital, where a nurse was manhandled and arrested by police as she protected the legal rights of a patient, has imposed new restrictions on law enforcement, including barring officers from patient-care areas and from direct contact with nurses.
....
Margaret Pearce, chief nursing officer for the University of Utah hospital system, said she was “appalled†by the officer’s actions and has already implemented changes in hospital protocol to avoid any repetition. She said police will no longer be permitted in patient-care areas, such as the burn unit where Wubbels was the charge nurse on the day of the incident and from emergency rooms. In addition, officers will have to deal with “house supervisors†instead of nurses when they have a request.


This should be the policy every hospital.  :thumbup1:

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Payne has now been fired from his paramedic job due to his comments about retaliating against the hospital by taking all the transients there and taking the "good patients" to other hospitals. Hopefully SLCPD will do the same in the near future.

Good riddance to bad garbage!!!

 

Now for the PD to do the same thing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news:

 

This should be the policy every hospital.  :thumbup1:

 

I would like to think the vast majority of police departments are run better and have a good rapport with hospitals - that policies like these are only rarely needed when one gets a bad pd like the one in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to think the vast majority of police departments are run better and have a good rapport with hospitals - that policies like these are only rarely needed when one gets a bad pd like the one in question.

I'm bothered it wasn't hospital policy to begin with. The police have no business being in those places or demanding anything of the staff unless the situation is a danger to the staff in some way that security can't handle or the person being treated is an actual prisoner/under arrest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bothered it wasn't hospital policy to begin with. The police have no business being in those places or demanding anything of the staff unless the situation is a danger to the staff in some way that security can't handle or the person being treated is an actual prisoner/under arrest.

 

The vast majority of LE I've come across are not demandy.  They are pleasant to deal with and do their jobs well.  I know the ER nurse who lives next to us can't believe what he saw with that PO.  He's never experienced anything of that sort.  They have good relationships with officers they see often.  Why should the departments he deals with have to be punished because there's a bad one out there?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...