Discussion in 'The NF Café' started by Huey Freeman, Sep 1, 2017.
I see nothing wrong in here
the police used appropriate force and authority
I'll do you one better: 3:12
I've been station and deployed in Latin America and the Caribbean, while they do have their fair share of corrupt cops I'll you this when there overwhelmingly evidence agains the cop, or worse a video. They waste no time in firing the cop and convicting him.
In all seriousness though, I hope the officer that made the arrest was fired and the other one given a suspension.
The arresting officer really lost his patience. He was unprofessional. But the police officer who comes in around minute 11 walks through the situation, and he's 100% right. If it later turns out they drew the blood illegally, its evidence would be dismissed. There's no reason to refuse it (barring danger to the patient). There's no national policy about this. You feel for the nurse because she's crying and screaming for help and saying the officer's assaulting her and whatever else, but it sounds like somebody fucked up on the hospital's end. Either she misunderstood instructions, or somebody instructed her incorrectly. She accidentally ended up obstructing police.
How did she end up accidentally obstructing when it says clearly in the article, "Wubbels says blood cannot be taken from an unconscious patient unless the patient is under arrest, unless there is a warrant allowing the draw or unless the patient consents. The detective acknowledges in the footage that none of those requirements is in place, but he insists that he has the authority to obtain the draw, according to the footage"?
All it's clearly saying in the article is what the nurse and officer said during the video. If one of them is misinformed, that's how.
When you look at the policies for obtaining blood from hospitalized patients it's clear there are gray areas. Example, a medical practitioner may object if he or she decides the blood drawing would be prejudicial. Problem is, police may also decide that's obstructing an investigating and arrest him or her. And there's no reason to suspect this drawing to be prejudicial since (as the officer states in the video), the patient is the victim, and they aren't trying to drum up any charges against him. That a practitioner may object doesn't protect that practitioner from obstruction if the police decide it's obstruction. They're investigating this, which is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if the nurse was in the wrong side of the law (and the arresting officer gets some training on keeping his temper under control).
Anybody on the forums know any nurses? What's their procedure? The police suggested hospitals consent to police in these situations, and if any illegality arises after the fact the police are barred from using the blood as evidence. I'm surprised nobody supervising the nurse came into the video at any point to try to sort out the situation, since apparently she was following instructions from a superior.
If she did that she would be sued, and loses her license without the ability to get it back.
"By all accounts, the head nurse at the University of Utah Hospital’s burn unit was professional and restrained when she told a Salt Lake City police detective he wasn’t allowed to draw blood from a badly injured patient.
The detective didn’t have a warrant, first off. And the patient wasn’t conscious, so he couldn’t give consent. Without that, the detective was barred from collecting blood samples — not just by hospital policy, but by basic constitutional law."
"On top of that, Wubbels was right. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that blood can only be drawn from drivers for probable cause, with a warrant."
"In Thursday’s news conference, Wubbels’s attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under “implied consent,” according to the Tribune. But Porter said “implied consent” law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels’s arrest unlawful.
“The law is well-established. And it’s not what we were hearing in the video,” she said. “I don’t know what was driving this situation.”
warrantless blood tests were illegal
She did nothing wrong. She'd be doing her job incorrectly if she allowed them to take blood. Kind of like how he and his superior officer weren't doing theirs correctly.
Something that is far too common in law enforcement. Good for her.
Well, can't argue with law.
Exactly, she was 100% acting according to medical procedure and the actual law on the matter. The HIPAA compliance is not something anyone wants to fuck around with.
Paid Vacation Time
I can't think of a union in Canada that suspends you with pay.
Does this vary by state? I was reading about these sorts of situations in phoenix, where
so I'm under the impression there are some wiggling worms between the lines of this fine print.
i fought the law and the law won
What in the name of Hindu,Muslim and Christian God you are talking about?
Nurse did not obstruct anyone here. Infact she was the only one following law here. Since when following law became obstructing police?
Some mind boggling logic you are using here .
A dallas lawyer believes if the suspect is unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusing, "the implied consent statute controls, and a blood sample may (still) be legally drawn from the suspect’s body," and there's some implied consent since this patient was the victim of the accident and police aren't trying to charge him with anything. A drunk driving resource online plainly states you may have blood drawn if you are unconscious. NYTimes has a story up declaring "court says police need warrant for blood test" only to conclude with Sotomayor writing, Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances. It's a lot of wishywashy, exigent circumstance stuff.
Still want to know why nobody higher up than the nurse stepped in once it was clear there was a problem. If she was only following instructions, somebody left her out to dry.
Legal or not this was an extremely inpatient and wild reaction by the officer.
Officer is dumb as hell the person was the victim and the sample would have been thrown out as evidence in court as well.
Now waiting on the "lessons learned and training given" statement as he gets let off with nothing but a slap on the wrist.
There is a national policy, and it's actually federal law. The officers in this case are either woefully misinformed, or knowingly attempted to violate both state law and HIPPA.
What you don't seem to understand here is that "procedure", when it comes to releasing PHI (protected health information), is governed entirely by law. These procedures aren't simply created at the whim of hospital administrators. Nurses can't just allow officers to draw blood without consent and discard it if it isn't needed. That blood is property of the patient, and any information gained from the results of testing that blood are PHI.
And your point about "gray areas" is nonsense. There is no gray area. Utah's state laws don't allow for implied consent any more, and releasing information without consent is an egregious violation of HIPPA. What these officers did was illegal, and a number of the comments made during the incident show a clear lack of respect for the law and for health care professionals who follow those laws and try to protect the privacy of their patients.
Yes, each state has their own public health laws and the people in the Health Information Management departments, who are responsible for the release of patient information, are all required to know their state's laws regarding ROI. The correct procedure in this case would have been for the officers to ask the hospital to save a sample of the patient's blood. They'd then either need to submit a written request for that blood (which would require the patient to sign the release form himself), or get a subpoena. It's a process that would take between 1-3 days at least, so there was no chance that these officers were going to leave with blood that day.
She was on the phone with a hospital administrator at the time, and another administrator was on the way down to speak with officers when she was arrested. There really wasn't any way to physically stop the arrest in that situation, since there was about 4 or 5 officers that would have prevented anyone from doing so.
Why is it that when these officers screw up royally, they're sent on leave with pay? How does that make any fucking sense? It's basically a reward.
but the law is still complicated. here's a university of utah law professor's article about it in the salt lake city tribune. he suggests everybody's wrong about everything, although the nurse is accidentally right for the wrong reasons. also, he refers to utah's very-much-still-existing implied consent laws.[/quote]
I looked into my crystal ball and saw this reply.
The police know they fucked up. If they went to the judge for warrant, there would be paper trail showing conspiracy to blame victim for illegal substances and get any lawsuit from dangerous chase tossed out. No probable cause, no paper trail, just his word against the nurse and the hospital policy.
I hope the victim, a truck driver and off duty police from another state sues this department.
Update: Police is fired from medical job
AND THIS also exist
I don't know what wilykat meant by police fired from medical job back on Sept 6th, but there's a recent report on the matter from Oct 10th and I'm bringing the thread back to life in case it's new news.
2 months ago he was fired from his position at the hospital collecting evidence from criminal and victim who ends up there. He wasn't removed from police force yet.
Happy to see the department take appropriate action. I only wish similar appropriate actions would be taken more often, in various departments, and in cases other than "breaking trust" with a fellow public institution by strong arming a distressed female nurse. But I'll take it.