Nurse forcibly arrested for not allowing cop to draw blood of unconscious patient(Video)

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Xcathdra

I get that, but don't you think this smells a little funny? It's not always about what someone can do legally, but about the why.

You'd be hard pressed to meet anyone more pro law enforcement than myself, but this was handled very poorly and definitely stinks to high heaven.

The cops were in the wrong, hopefully she can sue as well as the hospital.

Since it is a long thread, I have no idea what she was charged with.

What is worse, they are taking away a qualified medical person from their job of saving lives because of a power trip.

Can a LEO represntive please tell us their opinion of what went wrong here!

a reply to: Xcathdra

You think it is ok to remove a medic fron the hospital because she is trying to obey her employers policy?

She did not break the law. She failed to obey an unlawful from a jackass with a badge, a gun, and cuffs.

a reply to: Xcathdra

From section 382.303:

§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; or

(2) Who receives a citation within 8 hours of the occurrence under State or local law for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident, if the accident involved:

...

(d)(1) Alcohol tests. If a test required by this section is not administered within two hours following the accident, the employer shall prepare and maintain on file a record stating the reasons the test was not promptly administered. If a test required by this section is not administered within eight hours following the accident, the employer shall cease attempts to administer an alcohol test and shall prepare and maintain the same record. Records shall be submitted to the FMCSA upon request.

(2) Controlled substance tests. If a test required by this section is not administered within 32 hours following the accident, the employer shall cease attempts to administer a controlled substances test, and prepare and maintain on file a record stating the reasons the test was not promptly administered. Records shall be submitted to the FMCSA upon request.

...

(2) The results of a urine test for the use of controlled substances, conducted by Federal, State, or local officials having independent authority for the test, shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section, provided such tests conform to the applicable Federal, State or local controlled substances testing requirements, and that the results of the tests are obtained by the employer.
...

To save space I trimmed a bit out, but its all there in the link. I can't see how the police officer was beholden to obtaining a sample in the first place unless there was reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated, which there was none. These provisions are for employers. The last bit I included to point out that this is the only part of the section where Federal, State, or local officials are explicitly mentioned but it only behooves them to maintain the standard of this section. And it's for a urine test.

So how does this help in the argument that the officer was justified?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again I get that. That does not lessen the smell or explain why the officer acted inappropriately. That person should have never been given a gun or a badge given they have so little self control and a bad temper. I think we are on a different topic. My topic includes right and wrong, not just whether or not he could do that.

Also you don't think they wanted the blood right now, this second hoping to mitigate liability since the wreck was caused by the police? Where does the law say it's appropriate to manhandle a nurse to get sample from a victim?

There are a few shades of gray here.

a reply to: AMPTAH



Except where you are wrong is the officer DID break the law and the police have admitted it publicly by saying it was an UNLAWFUL arrest. Not sure what part of UN LAWFUL you don't get

a reply to: AMPTAH


And you are ok with the cops causing an accident and deflecting the blame onto an innocent bystander? You really need to stop posting man

a reply to: AMPTAH


From Amptah; The thing to remember is that a cop has only 3 tools to do his job.

1) make a threat or give a warning
2) make an arrest
3) shoot to kill



WOW!! Do you honestly believe that these are the only tools a cop has to do his job? You are sadly misinformed man

a reply to: jrod

She was not just following policy but also covering her own ass:

Nurse.com article explaining ethical/civil liabilities the nurse could face if she complied.

One acronym sums it up: HIPPA

Not to mention the ethical codes which professional nurses are held to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't see how your response applies to my post.

They wanted blood for toxicology. The blood had been drawn. If the patient was unconscious, a tox screen was performed. What they needed was available, and the hospital would have willing provided it. All they needed was a warrant. If they wanted to run their own test, they could have obtained a sample from the lab.

The accident they were investigating had little to nothing to do with what happened in this hospital.

I don't know see how anything that comes out this investigation will justify the officer's decisions or behavior. It may identify a need for policy changes, or a need for better training, not much else.

a reply to: dreamingawake

What in Carl Sagan's cosmos was this dunce thinking?

Detectives are quite liberal when when it comes to charging folk for obstructing or interfering with police, hell if you sneeze at a crime scene some will go Eric Cartman with all the "respect my authoritah!" show boating but still think they can impose themselves at will as we have just seen, some D's are like those @$$holes who park in handicap spots and flip the bird because they can.

He'll get the turn in your badge and gun treatment, that's a given. Will he face any serious repercussions? sadly probably not, he'll get a slap on the wrist and be back on the job-but he won't rest easy knowing he will be nationally reviled.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: redhorse

Every single law enfocement agency I have ever dealt with have policy and procedures / standard operating guidelines. They also have policies / guidelines that allows the overriding of a policy based on situation specific instances and usually must come from a supervisor / duty officer.

In this case a Lt.

As an example we have a guideline that says officers will not shoot from a moving vehicle. However our training includes shooting from a moving vehicle on the off chance an incident occurs where that is the only viable option available.

I have never heard of a witnessed no fault accident needing a blood draw against the hospitals recommendation?

Could you cite a similar case, the one you cited was not a similar case. This is the hospital questioning the officers discretion. Are the officers looking for fault in insurance claims since the hit in run was from a high speed chase?

Also what state did you get police training in for shooting in a moving vehicle? How often do you train that? As a hobbyist marksman who does three gun races I can tell you that is a terrible policy if not a weekly trained skill and very few marksman I know could do it without endangering the public.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

The person they wanted blood from was an unconscious truck driver. Tests are mandatory under federal laws concerning commercial truck drivers. The Hospital and local police policy as well as local and state laws were preempted by federal law and therefore dont apply.

a reply to: luthier

Post-accident alcohol and drug testing is required for Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) accidents occurring within the U.S. and on segments of interstate movements into Canada between the U.S.-Canadian border and the first physical delivery location of a Canadian consignee. The FHWA further believes its regulations require testing for segments of interstate movements out of Canada between the last physical pick-up location of a Canadian consignor and the U.S.-Canadian border. The same would be true for movements between the U.S.-Mexican border and a point in Mexico.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Post-accident alcohol and drug testing is required for Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) accidents occurring within the U.S. and on segments of interstate movements into Canada between the U.S.-Canadian border and the first physical delivery location of a Canadian consignee. The FHWA further believes its regulations require testing for segments of interstate movements out of Canada between the last physical pick-up location of a Canadian consignor and the U.S.-Canadian border. The same would be true for movements between the U.S.-Mexican border and a point in Mexico.

a reply to: Xcathdra
The blood was available with a warrant.

So what is the problem?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Maybe we should get more information then to put everything into context instead of fixating on just the nurse eh?

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Xcathdra
The blood was available with a warrant.

So what is the problem?

A warrant was not needed. what part of this are you not understanding?

a reply to: Xcathdra


Try what again, you know you are on the wrong side of this.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Where was the driver hauling?