IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Cops are COMPLETELY out of control.
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.

Still, Detective Jeff Payne insisted that he be let in to take the blood, saying the nurse would be arrested and charged if she refused.

Nurse Alex Wubbels politely stood her ground. She got her supervisor on the phone so Payne could hear the decision loud and clear. “Sir,” said the supervisor, “you’re making a huge mistake because you’re threatening a nurse.”

Payne snapped. He seized hold of the nurse, shoved her out of the building and cuffed her hands behind her back. A bewildered Wubbels screamed “help me” and “you’re assaulting me” as the detective forced her into an unmarked car and accused her of interfering with an investigation.

The explosive July 26 encounter was captured on officers’ body cameras and is now the subject of an internal investigation by the police department, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported Thursday. The videos were released by the Tribune, the Deseret News and other local media.

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/01/this-is-crazy-sobs-utah-hospital-nurse-as-cop-roughs-her-up-arrests-her-for-doing-her-job/
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New He and the lieutenant should both be arrested
When you show an officer clear documentation of a law or their own department policy and they willfully do the opposite, that should be a crime. That implies that producing false documentation should carry heavy penalties, and I'm OK with that.

For this particular case, how's this: Ask the hospital to keep a sample for later analysis should a warrant be obtained.
--

Drew
New Did you watch the video? Her demeanor was entirely professional - until she was assaulted.
And I disagree completely with your suggestion that they "hold a sample" for later. The truck driver was *the victim* in this case. He wasn't the guy running away from the cops, but the innocent person the runaway slammed into. Even the cops said themselves they couldn't get a warrant because they didn't have probable cause for a warrant. So, why should a person not suspected of anything, who is severely injured be subjected to evidence collection?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New What do you think I was saying?
First, where did I say anything about the nurse?

Second:
And I disagree completely with your suggestion that they "hold a sample" for later. The truck driver was *the victim* in this case.
Ever heard of a CDL?
§382.303 Post-accident testing.
(a) As soon as practicable following an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road in commerce, each employer shall test for alcohol for each of its surviving drivers:

(1) Who was performing safety-sensitive functions with respect to the vehicle, if the accident involved the loss of human life

Short version: If you're operating a CMV (Commercial Motor Vehicle) and you're involved in an accident that causes a fatality, you must be tested for alcohol in order to keep your CDL (Commercial Driver's License) whether you're at fault or not.
--

Drew
New But the cop was not acting as an agent of the employer
You want to play lawyer? Ok, I'll play.

The CDL testing you refer to is employer and employee requirements. It has very specific directions, requirements and exceptions the cop was not following. Are you saying that you want to put cops in the position to violate rights of individuals in order to facilitate employer mandates? Or add legal penalties that has nothing to do with loss of CDL?

Here's a bit back at you:


§382.111 Other requirements imposed by employers.
Except as expressly provided in this part, nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the authority of employers, or the rights of drivers, with respect to the use of alcohol, or the use of controlled substances, including authority and rights with respect to testing and rehabilitation.


Put some rockets on your rollerblades as you fly down that slippery slope.
New No, the cop was wrong, and so was his lieutenant
What I'm getting at is that any time a cop - or a salesman, or anyone who wants you to do something you're not enthusiastic about - starts insisting that you have to do it right away "for your own good" it's best to delay it. If they're not willing to wait, there's something not kosher about the request.

"If you wait for your lawyer before answering these questions, I won't be able to help you." OK, thanks, I'll definitely wait for my lawyer then.

"I can't guarantee this offer will still be there tomorrow." OK, I'll talk to you tomorrow and see what the deal looks like then.

"If the other driver's family tries to sue for wrongful death, this guy's best defense will be a clean sample from immediately after the accident. If he's not conscious to give consent, would you agree to take the sample and give him the option to test it or dispose of it once he's awake?" Oh, that's actually pretty reasonable. Let me check with my supervisor.

But that's not what he said. There's clearly no reason for a police phlebotomist to do the draw unless he's a suspect. His reaction confirmed he was acting outside his authority, and the lieutenant who told him to do it was also wrong.

I was citing the CDL regs just to make the point that it's entirely normal for a professional driver to be tested after an accident, even if he's not believed to be at fault. Who normally performs that test, I didn't check.
--

Drew
     Cops are COMPLETELY out of control. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
         He and the lieutenant should both be arrested - (drook) - (4)
             Did you watch the video? Her demeanor was entirely professional - until she was assaulted. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                 What do you think I was saying? - (drook) - (2)
                     But the cop was not acting as an agent of the employer - (crazy) - (1)
                         No, the cop was wrong, and so was his lieutenant - (drook)

Religion.
38 ms