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

a reply to: Xcathdra

I said medical staff had civil immunity. You accused me of gaslighting you.

Yes, you're gaslighting all of us, because you keep telling us the officer had the legal right to draw that patient's blood. He did not!

This isn't about the nurse's liability, it's about the purpose of the blood draw being unconstitutional. It's about the purpose of the blood draw for a criminal investigation, not for civil purposes.

Then, you gaslight us all by misquoting posters, pretending they're to stupid to follow a line of thought, all the while, you're the one changing goal posts.

It's desperation man! You lost this one.
Nurse Wubbels -1,
Salt Lake City PD -0

a reply to: windword

and yet I provided you with the statute in response to your false claim.

The blood draw was completed.

We shall see what happens with the investigation into the incident. Unless you want to keep changing your post responses in order to rehash already argued points. That seems to be what you are doing.

a reply to: windword



Also if LEO was in the right and legally bound as some on here claim, why would the PD change their policy to match the hospitals, and now say there is NO IMPLIED CONSENT, and now they need a warrant or expressed consent? I think it is because they know they were wrong and the hospital was on the correct side of the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I understand your position, but think hospital policy..especially when in the hospital should of been the overriding policy..I understand the situation in that regard has been changed by the PD.
I wonder what the Logan PD officer thinks about this whole mess?..it would be interesting to hear a comment from him on how this went down.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: windword



Also if LEO was in the right and legally bound as some on here claim, why would the PD change their policy to match the hospitals, and now say there is NO IMPLIED CONSENT, and now they need a warrant or expressed consent? I think it is because they know they were wrong and the hospital was on the correct side of the law.

They changed their policy after the incident. What was their policy when the detective was in the Hospital - the police policy and not the Hospitals policy since we already know the Mayor and Chief stated publicly the police policy changed after the incident.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The blood draw was completed.

Says who? By whom? This is the 3rd time I've asked for a source for that assertion. Please provide one.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

I understand your position, but think hospital policy..especially when in the hospital should of been the overriding policy..I understand the situation in that regard has been changed by the PD.
I wonder what the Logan PD officer thinks about this whole mess?..it would be interesting to hear a comment from him on how this went down.

Chances are they wont comment since the Unified Police department is conducting an investigation into the situation. The Logan officer will most likely be interviewed to see what he requested and why he requested it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MALBOSIA

For medical care sure.

for criminal law requirements no, law enforcement is more educated than medical staff and trying to make a weapons argument shows your true colors towards law enforcement.

I was going to send this as a pm but since you reacted the way you did i will post it here.

This issue in Utah is not as black and white as being portrayed and a lot of critical info is being ignored that is just now coming to light.

This board has a lot of people who hate cops because of their own personal experiences. When those experiences spill over into anything law enforcement people, like me, who explain the side they choose to ignore and hate, get attacked and accused of holding a certain view, even when we have already stated our view.

My opinion / feeling is they just want to attack law enforcement and will ignore any and all facts that put a wrench in those gears.

Its why I participate the way I do in these types of threads.

I try to provide the information as to why an officer could do something. If people dont like the officers actions and demand they be held accountable then the first step to making the change is to understand the law in question and then go from there.

People, not all, refuse to see the information provided in that manner and instead chose to beleieve its an absolute defense of an officers actions when it is not.

If you guys are incapable of processing information then that is o you and not me..

I will continue to participate in threads like these and give the side that people dont care about in hopes that maybe 1 person might come away from one of these threads with an open mind to ask questions for understanding.

That sounds like a soap box speech.

You claim facts but your only argument against the nurse is should have, would have, could have. The nurse was not legally obligated to do or say any more than she did. The officer on the other hand had no legal right to arrest the nurse.

However in your soap box speech you claim that anyone that points that out just hate police and your the almighty defender or "facts"

a reply to: Xcathdra


Exactly, and as I said WHY would they change it if it was lawful and right? If they had the law on their side the hospital would have to change their policy to be in line with the law.. RIF. Reading Is Fundamental

a reply to: Xcathdra

Unless you want to keep changing your post responses in order to rehash already argued points. That seems to be what you are doing.

No it isn't. You said that Utah's "implied consent" laws weren't unconstitutional, because they imposed civil punishments, not criminal.

You said that the cop had the right to draw blood, because it was for a civil investigation, not a criminal investigation, he was conducting.

I'm pointing out how wrong your logic is, by presenting you with the arresting officer's words, that he wanted the blood to prove the driver's innocence. And, I provided you with the other officer telling the hospital administrator he wanted the blood for his CRIMINAL investigation. Those are not civil investigation reasons.

I'm not arguing the hospital's or the nurse's liability, I'm arguing that the request was unlawful. That's been established, but you keep telling us that the officer's request was lawful. It wasn't. The officers had to have a reason to believe the patient was driving under the influence. They had no probably cause.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra

The blood draw was completed.

Says who? By whom? This is the 3rd time I've asked for a source for that assertion. Please provide one.

and it has been answered. Medical staff notified the detective that medical took a blood draw as a matter of course for them. It is why the nurse was released and why the officers left the hospital.


2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest

The detective left Wubbels in a hot police car for 20 minutes before realizing that blood had already been drawn as part of treatment, her lawyer, Karra Porter, said. Wubbels was released without being arrested.

When the detective arrived on scene he was told by the nurse he had to obtain permission from administration. After waiting an hour he contacted his lt. who told him to arrest her if she continued to interfere.


source

In response to the incident, Judd said the department updated its blood-draw policy last week to mirror what the hospital uses.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That makes sense..will be interesting.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and it has been answered. Medical staff notified the detective that medical took a blood draw as a matter of course for them. It is why the nurse was released and why the officers left the hospital.

LOL, enjoying your circle jerk?

Yes, and they would have needed a warrant to get those results. But, they didn't have a warrant, and couldn't get a warrant, because there was no probable cause.

It's absurd and insulting to expect that the officer, who's also a paramedic and phlebologist, didn't know that.

They couldn't draw their own blood, because they didn't have a warrant, and implied consent didn't apply in this case, for their express purpose.

So you misrepresented the truth when you said that the draw was done anyway, as if that made the officers' request legal!

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Well if it were different you wouldn't have made the jack booted thug comment but whatever works for you.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Exactly, and as I said WHY would they change it if it was lawful and right? If they had the law on their side the hospital would have to change their policy to be in line with the law.. RIF. Reading Is Fundamental

Because Utahs implied consent laws were not affected by the Scotus ruling.

a reply to: windword

Yeah no..

try again and read your post, then my response to that post.

I said medical staff has immunity when acting under the direction of aw enforcement in these cases. You then went to something else.

i never claimed the blood draw was for anything civil. Feel free to cite it.

i am pointing out how you are unable to follow the conversation and just make up things and assign them to people who never said it.

a reply to: windword

No the draw was done. It is why the nurse was released. If you cant follow along why should anyone respond to your post?

serious question.

As an officer he cant just walk into an ER and rifle through a patients records. Medical staff has to disclose that information and judging by responses in this thread you dont assume.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I am not asking about SCOTUS you keep diverting when you know you are wrong. I am saying if the hospital's policy was not in line with the law and had the law backing them THEY would have been the one's that had to change their policy, but instead the PD changed their policy to be in line with the hospitals. The only reason they would change their policy is it was counter to the law and they know it. If the police were right they would let the hospital know the law and how it applies and tell them their policy needs to change.

a reply to: Xcathdra



And quit belittling people with your snarky comments, you are the one that can not follow along

a reply to: dreamingawake>>>> It's jail the officer will be a goin'. He's going to lose his job, have his ass sued. I like how the cop tries to talk her into agreeing that this didn't have to happen and that she was in the wrong by not doing the wrong thing and he was in the right by doing the completely wrong thing. 7 figure settlement against the police department and they'll be forced to walk on eggshells any time they enter that hospital.