Utah hospital bars cops from contact with nurses after appalling attack

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/04/utah-hospital-bars-cops-from-contact-with-nurses-after-appalling-arrest/

[Jacque67 7,328]

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/

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

   

54 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/04/utah-hospital-bars-cops-from-contact-with-nurses-after-appalling-arrest/

 

    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. 

 

   

[Jacque67 7,328]

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.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

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 

[Jacque67 7,328]

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 

Plus 109!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

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. 

[Jacque67 7,328]

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!

[TBoneTX 43,045]

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!

[jg121783 3,907]

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 

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.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

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

  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.

[jg121783 3,907]

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.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

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. 

 

   

[charmander 692]

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.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Well thank goodness everybody disagrees with the opinion proffered by the Daily Caller.