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

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is repetitive because you are unwilling to see that what happened here was just plain wrong on all levels.

There are no laws or regulations that make what he did right.

My job requires me to collect forensic evidence, not just toxicology, any of it that may exist. I have run into walls on an occasion or two. The way that this detective handled this was just plain wrong.

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: Xcathdra

And the section of title 49 which deals with drug testing is stated as a regulation beholden to the employer, not local or state law enforcement. It is not a law in the sense that local officials are the ones responsible for its enforcement unless there is a criminal charge against the driver, in which case they have their own interest to start and would never have to worry about DOT regulations.

The police do not act in the capacity for the DOT, they have their own enforcement.

ETA Link:
Title 49, Section 40

49 U.S. Code § 31306 - Alcohol and controlled substances testing

(2) In prescribing regulations under this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation—
(A) shall require that post-accident testing of an operator of a commercial motor vehicle be conducted when loss of human life occurs in an accident involving a commercial motor vehicle;
(B) may require that post-accident testing of such an operator be conducted when bodily injury or significant property damage occurs in any other serious accident involving a commercial motor vehicle; and
(C) shall provide an exemption from hair testing for commercial motor vehicle operators with established religious beliefs that prohibit the cutting or removal of hair.

§382.211 Refusal to submit to a required alcohol or controlled substances test.

No driver shall refuse to submit to a pre-employment controlled substance test required under §382.301, a post-accident alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.303, a random alcohol or controlled substances test required under §382.305, a reasonable suspicion alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.307, a return-to-duty alcohol or controlled substances test required under §382.309, or a follow-up alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.311. No employer shall permit a driver who refuses to submit to such tests to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.

They are in fact US laws so please stop with the false argument that they arent.

Section 382 allows for law enforcement testing during the course of an investigation to be used in place of employee testing.

a reply to: AMPTAH



Wrong again, they were even wrong using the existing agreement they had with the hospital, and they were wrong according to the law hence them admitting it was an UNLAWFUL arrest

originally posted by: amazing
Here's the weird thing. I think she was in the right, but...

Why was she the only one standing up for that patient? Where were managers, doctors, supervisers, other nurses, administrators etc. ? that almost makes you think she was in the wrong, or nobody in the hospital liked her and were using her as a scapegoat or something.

Because it was her patient. I don't think you understand the role and responsibility and accountability of an RN.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

So your issue is with the way the detective acted regardless of what they law says.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that these cops in Utah are phlebotomist's.

(( Several dozen troopers and other law enforcers statewide are trained in phlebotomy, a program started in Utah in 2005. The idea was to obtain the best evidence, avoid medical bureaucracy and save the state money.))


I don't think i would want a cop drawing my blood or yours for that matter.

I also don't understand why he wanted the Truck drivers blood as the T.D. was a victim just driving down the road doing his job when the out of control nutjob suicided into his rig.

I think they need to change some laws in utah...

www.standard.net...

a reply to: Xcathdra

No it does not trump the medical care and was never meant to. It was for foreign drivers and the increase of accidents from loose Mexican inspection and driving regulations. But maybe you TRY and use that. Doesn't mean it works. Show a case where law enforcement wins a a lawsuit against medical advice and the requirement of their federal laws.

Go for it champ.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Hard for the guy to "refuse" when he is unconcious

a reply to: AMPTAH

Hospitals cant prevent law enforcement from entering the premises while performing their official duties.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Hard for the guy to "refuse" when he is unconcious

Since the law says he cant refuse post accident testing its kind of a moot point as to whether he is conscious or not.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think the problem here is that they didn't inform her of the fact that the laws are different for commercial truck drivers. Honestly I don't think that arresting officer even knew that or else he could have explained it. I think the whole situation was handled poorly, I'm sure you could agree with that. If he had pulled up the guidelines for commercial truck drivers I'm sure the hospital would have been completely cooperative. Or do they not need to give a reason for what they are doing? Really asking, I don't know how that works.

originally posted by: Sagacity

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.

This is normal cop behavior.

It's just that this was captured on camera.

The victim is white.

She is a nurse whose life is helping people.

That's why the outrage.

If it was a black woman in Walmart's, refusing the let the officer see the cash register receipts, because her boss said it was against company policy, we'd all be singing the praises of the officer.

Very ugly thing to watch…The cop saying to the lead doctor on the phone line-- were done. The doctor was trying to tell him how he was so wrong. Then the cop got violent with the nurse.

Today, the nurse seems to indicate she won’t sue and accepted the apology.

a reply to: baddmove

It is a safer / easier way to preserve chain of custody. You remove an outside agency and keep it all internal with law enforcement. That way training requirements and adherence to departmental policy / laws is better controlled and reduces the chances of collected evidence from being thrown out based on a technicality.

It also reduces the chances of a "policy" from one agency interfering in the actions of another agency.

a reply to: Xcathdra
You are excusing his behavior based on the law.

What law gives justification for his behavior?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: alphabetaone

It was a hail Mary to avoid insurance payouts. Pretty obvious. They got caught because Bruno went rogue.

Of course it was, it's plain. Hiding behind a badge and threatened use of force and erroneous arrest is why so many people have problems with Law Enforcement as it exists today.

What baffles me is why this cop cared enough to go that far rogue? It's not HIS money or reputation that would have suffered from any pending payout. So it leaves one to believe that he simply wanted to exert unnecessary authority simply because he thought he "could".

Guess he just found out the contrary thanks to one brave nurse.

originally posted by: lucidclouds
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think the problem here is that they didn't inform her of the fact that the laws are different for commercial truck drivers. Honestly I don't think that arresting officer even knew that or else he could have explained it. I think the whole situation was handled poorly, I'm sure you could agree with that. If he had pulled up the guidelines for commercial truck drivers I'm sure the hospital would have been completely cooperative. Or do they not need to give a reason for what they are doing? Really asking, I don't know how that works.

Bingo,...

The arrest procedure alone is a problem. That is the funny thing here with this discourse. There was no rush. The patient was unconcious. Higher ranking people are the protocol here. The director and the station chief. The detective ws old enough to know and stay calm like a pro.

a reply to: Xcathdra



the police department said the arrest was UNLAWFUL not sure how much more clear cut this can be. This person is not wanted for and there is no PC to show he did anything criminal he was a victim of a high speed police chase, and I believe it has clearly been shown in the USC you keep referring to that !) employer can require a drug/alcohol screen in event of accident. 2) police need PC to require a blood test. I think you are either trolling and are being very selective and deceptive with your reading and posting of the code.

a reply to: AMPTAH


I actually disagree, I think because she is white there is no national outrage and had she been black it would be leading the news and there would be protests and riots right now.

a reply to: norhoc

I saw this first on national news.