Jump to content
Jacque67

Utah hospital bars cops from contact with nurses after appalling attack

23 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

   

54 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

 

    Crazy. Not only did they not have a warrant, but the patient was actually the victim who got hit by someone else. 

 

   Police officer should have known better. 

 

   


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   

 

    Crazy. Not only did they not have a warrant, but the patient was actually the victim who got hit by someone else. 

 

   Police officer should have known better. 

 

   

Word. Hope she's awarded gazillions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

And a "great" opinion piece on this incident,written by a saddo who was only admitted to the bar in 2016,can be found in The Daily Caller!

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/04/arrested-utah-nurse-had-it-coming/

 

 

The guy who wrote that piece is an idiot.

 

The guy who they were looking to draw blood from was a reserve police officer from Idaho, he was doing is other job driving a truck when he was hit head on by a car that was involved in a high speed chase. If you look at the full length 19 minute video you will see a uniformed officer ask the phlebotomist what the name of the driver of the truck was and he is told that it is in a box in the trunk of his car. The officer retrieves a piece of paper with the drivers name and then enters it into the computer in his police cruiser. At this point the officer would have found out that the driver was in fact a police officer from Idaho and he goes and whispers in the detectives ear, the video then ends. I reckon they knew they were in trouble at that point and had got it all wrong.

 

After she was placed in the cruiser another officer informed her that even if they were breaking the law drawing the blood there was a process in place to deal with it later. I think this is the second officer who was suspended.

 

She was looking after her patient, fair play to her :thumbs:


Mar-15-2017 - I-130 Mailed to Chicago Lockbox

Mar-21-2017 - NOA1 Priority date & Case assigned to Nebraska Service Center 

Dec-15-2017 - NOA2 I-130 approved

Jan-08-2018 -  NVC received

Jan-17-2018 - Received DS-261 AOS bill

Jan-17-2018 - Paid DS-261 AOS bill & submit 

Jan-26-2018 - Received IV bill

Jan-27-2018 - Paid IV bill

Feb-10-2018 - Send IV package

Feb-13-2018 - Scan Date

Feb-27-2018 - NVC Case Complete

Mar-17-2018   Receive interview date for April, St Patrick's Day good day to be Irish

Apr-17-2018    Interview at Dublin Embassy 

Apr-17-2018    Interview completed now in AP pending submitting other paperwork

Apr-25-2018    Additional information provided as requested 

May-09-2018   Visa approved, CEAC status changed to "Issued"

May-11-2018   Passport returned along with envelope for border control. 

Sep-18-2018    Entry through US Precleance Dublin, no problems at all.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The guy who wrote that piece is an idiot.

 

The guy who they were looking to draw blood from was a reserve police officer from Idaho, he was doing is other job driving a truck when he was hit head on by a car that was involved in a high speed chase. If you look at the full length 19 minute video you will see a uniformed officer ask the phlebotomist what the name of the driver of the truck was and he is told that it is in a box in the trunk of his car. The officer retrieves a piece of paper with the drivers name and then enters it into the computer in his police cruiser. At this point the officer would have found out that the driver was in fact a police officer from Idaho and he goes and whispers in the detectives ear, the video then ends. I reckon they knew they were in trouble at that point and had got it all wrong.

 

After she was placed in the cruiser another officer informed her that even if they were breaking the law drawing the blood there was a process in place to deal with it later. I think this is the second officer who was suspended.

 

She was looking after her patient, fair play to her :thumbs:

Plus 109!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

And a "great" opinion piece on this incident,written by a saddo who was only admitted to the bar in 2016,can be found in The Daily Caller!

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/04/arrested-utah-nurse-had-it-coming/

 

 

That dude needs to revisit his Evidence and Crim Pro notes. If he was admitted last year, he has no excuse for not knowing that Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) controls here. Further, it is totally immaterial what federal law says here, because this is a STATE matter -- this is a question of Utah law. Even if it were a federal question (and one can hardly think of a situation where a DUI matter would be of federal concern), McNeely still controls. 

 

Let's all repeat it: The natural metabolization of alcohol does not present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement.

 

UGH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, elmcitymaven said:

That dude needs to revisit his Evidence and Crim Pro notes. If he was admitted last year, he has no excuse for not knowing that Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) controls here. Further, it is totally immaterial what federal law says here, because this is a STATE matter -- this is a question of Utah law. Even if it were a federal question (and one can hardly think of a situation where a DUI matter would be of federal concern), McNeely still controls. 

 

Let's all repeat it: The natural metabolization of alcohol does not present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement.

 

UGH. 

Plus a gazillion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Let's all repeat it: The natural metabolization of alcohol does not present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement.

English-only outside the regional forums, Maven ma'am! :P


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The guy who wrote that piece is an idiot.

 

The guy who they were looking to draw blood from was a reserve police officer from Idaho, he was doing is other job driving a truck when he was hit head on by a car that was involved in a high speed chase. If you look at the full length 19 minute video you will see a uniformed officer ask the phlebotomist what the name of the driver of the truck was and he is told that it is in a box in the trunk of his car. The officer retrieves a piece of paper with the drivers name and then enters it into the computer in his police cruiser. At this point the officer would have found out that the driver was in fact a police officer from Idaho and he goes and whispers in the detectives ear, the video then ends. I reckon they knew they were in trouble at that point and had got it all wrong.

 

After she was placed in the cruiser another officer informed her that even if they were breaking the law drawing the blood there was a process in place to deal with it later. I think this is the second officer who was suspended.

 

She was looking after her patient, fair play to her :thumbs:

100% agreed. I'm not normally one to oppose police but in this case it is pretty clear the officer was in the wrong and is likely guilty of criminal activity. One could argue the officer should be charged with assault while displaying a deadly weapon (the pistol on his belt) and kidnapping because he was in no way shape or form acting legally in his official capacity as an officer. I hope the nurse takes his house and car if she sues him and I hope he loses his job along with the ability to be employed with any other police department at the very least.

 

No amount of mental gymnastics can justify what happened to the nurse and I will say the daily caller got it wrong this time. The good thing is most on the right understand the officer is wrong in this one. I have even seen some so called far right people condemn this officer. Even people who would normally give police the benefit of the doubt out of hand (I am not one of those) are saying this officer was wrong.

 

All that being said we shouldn't use this as an excuse to say all police are bad just as we shouldn't say all of them are good. There are good and bad people who are police just as there are good and bad people in any other group and to deny that (from either side) is border line mental illness.


morfunphil1_zpsoja67jml.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

English-only outside the regional forums, Maven ma'am! :P

  I think it's saying alcohol is not metabolized quickly, therefore police have plenty of time to get a search warrant if that's what they need to do. There's already a process in place for doing a forcible blood extraction to obtain evidence without violating a persons constitutional rights.


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  I think it's saying alcohol is not metabolized quickly, therefore police have plenty of time to get a search warrant if that's what they need to do. There's already a process in place for doing a forcible blood extraction to obtain evidence without violating a persons constitutional rights.

It isn't even about whether the blood draw was legal or not. That is irrelevant. What this is about is a police officer assaulting and kidnapping someone with no justification whatsoever. Let's assume the blood draw was legal. This officer still had no authority or right to do what he did. The correct thing for him to do would be to contact his supervisor. To me this seems like a jack boot thug throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way. Not a professional law enforcement officer.


morfunphil1_zpsoja67jml.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It isn't even about whether the blood draw was legal or not. That is irrelevant. What this is about is a police officer assaulting and kidnapping someone with no justification whatsoever. Let's assume the blood draw was legal. This officer still had no authority or right to do what he did. The correct thing for him to do would be to contact his supervisor. To me this seems like a jack boot thug throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way. Not a professional law enforcement officer.

 

   If the blood draw was legal without consent and the nurse interfered, I believe that could have been grounds for an arrest. I have worked in ER's in states where forcible extraction was legal (prior to the SCOTUS ruling) and law enforcement could arrest people who interfered. 

 

   


995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The detective is an idiot for not knowing the standard procedure but what appalled me was the indifference of at least two other police officers witnessing the event. One officer is the one carrying the body camera shooting the video, then there is at least one more police officer that comes in the scene when the detective starts dragging her out. There is one more guy with a badge standing by the exit door (not sure if he is a police officer or hospital security) but he is also there doing nothing.

 

Whoever was in the scene and did nothing about it should also be disciplined.

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
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×