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

Officer who arrested Utah nurse fired from paramedic job

A police officer who was caught on video forcefully arresting a Utah nurse for refusing to allow law enforcement to draw a blood sample from a patient has been fired from his part-time job as a paramedic, according to The Associated Press.

The ambulance company's president said Tuesday that Detective Jeff Payne was fired after a video of him surfaced in which he said he would retaliate against the nurse, the AP reported.

Payne was put on paid leave by the Salt Lake City police department after the initial video of him dragging the crying nurse out of the hospital went viral. The hospital has since banned law enforcement officials from interacting directly with its nurses.

click link for article

a reply to: Xcathdra


Boy, I bet officer Payne wishes he could have a do over for that day!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra


Boy, I bet officer Payne wishes he could have a do over for that day!

Most likely however the termination from the EMS job might blow up in their faces if all they based the termination on was the video. Utah is an at-will state with a covenant of good faith exception. Its broad and usually requires a just reason for the action and can be challenged in court.

This is assuming the Detective wants to keep his part time ems job. If not then its a moot point.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Update -

Basically what people were talking about. The Hospital officially announced their new policy today at a press conference. Law Enforcement's point of contact with the Hospital is restricted to Hospital Supervisors only. Contact must occur in a non patient care area.

Utah hospital changes policy following nurse's violent arrest

Now, about that -
* - Hospital policy Law Enforcement "agreed to" - never happened. The newest policy, according to the article, is a Hospital only policy. They are vague on what policy the Police and the Hospital came up with.

* - Implied Consent laws - Apparently the reason University police did not interfere with the Salt Lake city officer or his actions is because they were operating under the same policy - that the implied consent law was still valid and active. So even Hospital police were operating under a different policy than the medical side of the Hospital.

Since the incident University police have had to undergo deescalation training in an effort to prevent a similar occurrence. One major issue with a Hospital having their own police department is how they can force a policy onto their officers while they are also required to follow state / local law. From experience i can say it can cause massive problems when a policy comes into conflict with a state or local law. Admins have a bad habit of thinking their policy will override when it does not.

So far the Hospital policy still requires consent or a warrant and there is nothing in that policy that deals with exigent circumstances where a warrantless blood draw can occur. Once again setting up a potential conflict where if push comes to shove we would once again have a situation where a nurse is going to try and hide behind policy only to be arrested because of that policy.

I still get the impression the Hospital and Salt Lake City pd have had and still have issues coming together on certain topics and based on the Hospitals press conference it sounds like they are sending the message to the PD through the media.

So are you suggesting that ignorance of the law is acceptable?
Or could you be adult enough to admit that YOU have been So far up LEO's backside that you now have brown hair?

a reply to: Xcathdra

and yet hes lost one job and is on leave facing an internal affairs invesigation as a police officer so his job as well as another officer may very well be over ,and apparently regardless of how you want to treat it the police department,mayor and a whole bunch of others and general court of opinion seems to be treating it like the officer overstepped his authority and acted in a way not becoming of a law enforcement officer. so defend him how ever much you like but as pretty much every single other entity in the situation is against the officer and his terrible conduct you may end up being the lone voice of dissent on this.

i mean even his own co is throwing him under the bus for this for making the department look bad ,they have changed their policy implying that yeah he was screwing up pretty bad and at this point i hope she goes forward with a lawsuit ,hell the chief of police even apologized . so if his bosses are agaisnt him,the nurses union most of the city council and mayor its not exactly looking good for his prospects in law enforcement ,and as even the department of the victim in the accident is pissed off about how their officer was almost treated by the utah officers its not looking good

wonkette.com...

The Rigby PD also thanked Alex Wubbels and University Hospital for “standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act.” SLC Police spokesperson Christina Judd also clarified a misperception about the encounter in the burn unit of the hospital: While many assumed from the video and reporting (as we did) that Payne was demanding that Wubbels draw blood from Gray, he was instead demanding that Wubbels tell him which room Gray was in, so Payne, who is trained to draw blood in investigations, could draw the blood himself. The Logan, Utah, office of the Highway Patrol had asked Payne to perform the blood draw, which is common in fatal accidents. Judd also said that after the incident at the hospital, the police department updated its own guidelines for blood draws by officers to make clear they can only be done with a warrant or with patient consent. Read more at wonkette.com...

oh and its now salt lake city pd policy that blood draws only be done with paitent consent OR a warrant so legal or other wise they wont be attempting to take blood from unconscious individuals with out a warrant or consent of the suspect/patient . so in looking at this the nurse is getting pretty much every thing she asked for and if the officer had just gotten a warrant he wouldn't be national news as a screw up

and one more link as the beer kicks in www.nbcchicago.com... this is from a case in chicago where a comparable(not identical though) incident happened and the nurse in that case sued and won 78k in dammages from above source

A Chicago-based nurse landed a $78,000 payday for standing up for her principles. In August a Chicago police officer handcuffed Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center nurse Lisa Hofstra when she refused to draw blood from an allegedly drunken driver because he hadn’t been admitted to the hospital – per hospital rules. She sat in officer Marcelo Rodriguez’s squad car for 45 minutes. "It is important to remember that nurses work for hospitals and not the Chicago Police Department," Hofstra's attorney Blake Horwitz said. Source: Nurse Wins $78,000 in Handcuff Suit - NBC Chicago www.nbcchicago.com... Follow us: @nbcchicago on Twitter | nbcchicago on Facebook

and as in that case the guy she was refusing to draw blood from was actually guilty as all hell she still won her lawsuit so perhaps this will be the final message to law enforcement to leave nurses out of their power trips

a reply to: ParkerCramer

What you are asking is not really making sense. The Supreme Court ruling everyone is citing doesnt apply to Utah because Utahs implied consent law is civil and not criminal. If one department is confused its a training issue. when you have multiple agencies saying the same thing then there is another issue that needs to be looked at. My guess is that issue revolves around the scotus ruling. Even more so when the Hospitals own police department was operating off of state law and not Hospital policy. Even Logan pd was operating off the implied consent law.

As for the comment of you actually read my posts you would know I didnt support the way the officer handled the situation. I have also pointed out that facts keep coming out that keeps changing the narrative originally pushed. I have stated I want to see all the info, regardless of the direction that info takes.

Why is it so wrong to want facts before judging? Why is it so wrong to list the laws in play for context? You guys bitch about officers rushing to judgment yet you guys seem to be exempt in the reversal.

The Hospital lied when they claimed in the video the Salt Lake City PD agreed to the Hospital policy. The PD policy didnt change until after this incident occurred and even then they have been meeting to find a common policy both sides can work with. As far as I know / read that has not occurred yet. Its most likely the reason the Hospitals new policy tries to block Police from speaking to nurses in the course of their routine duties (which they cant do).

There is a criminal investigation ongoing by the Unified Police department.
There is an IA investigation ongoing by Salt Lake City PD.

I will wait to see what comes of those investigations. You feel free to call me all the names you want if it makes you feel better.

a reply to: Xcathdra


I would imagine he lost his job because he threatened to bring that hospital only indigent/bad patients, and take the "good" patients to another hospital. That might have cinched the deal.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

In case you haven't noticed I dont care about the court of public opinion as it has nothing to do with how law is applied.

There are actually 2 investigations occurring - an IA investigation by Salt Lake City and a criminal investigation by the Unified Police Department (sheriffs office).

The Hospital already got caught lying in the video and the Hospitals own police department were of the same mindset as Salt Lake City police about their implied consent laws.

I will wait for the investigations.

With that said I have stated numerous times (that people have ignored) that the officer should have handled the situation differently than the way he did.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Supreme Court ruling everyone is citing doesnt apply to Utah because Utahs implied consent law is civil and not criminal.

Um, what?

Supreme Court rulings apply to all states.

That's why it's the...Supreme Court of the United States.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra


I would imagine he lost his job because he threatened to bring that hospital only indigent/bad patients, and take the "good" patients to another hospital. That might have cinched the deal.

Possibly although that threat is baseless since that Hospital cant choose patients on spec - they have to take them. Like i said if the detective doesnt care he was fired from EMS then its a moot point. If he does care then he might have a case against the EMS company.

Termination before investigations are completed are dangerous.

I am not calling you names, I was inquiring to see if you had enough decency to admit how wrong you have been on this. Everyone, including entire police departments , including their legal departments have said the nurse was in the right, and yet you CANNOT T see it. I appreciate tenacity, I truly do, however, you are against the World here. Be a man, pick yourself off the floor, brush off your bruised ego, and move on. I, and I'm sure many others will respect your ability to admit that you were wrong, as we all are sometimes.

Here's a couple of beers for you, hoping you can look in that mirror, and be a better man.


ParkerCramer

MTUBY a reply to: Xcathdra

a reply to: windword

That's exactly why he was terminated.

Payne’s actions ”violated several company policies and left a poor image of the company,” Gold Cross President Mike Moffitt said in a Tuesday interview. ”We determined today it was best to part ways.”

“Although Jeff was not working for Gold Cross Ambulance at the time of the incident, we take his inappropriate remarks regarding patient transports seriously,” according to a Tuesday company statement about the termination.

SOURCE

a reply to: Xcathdra

Possibly although that threat is baseless since that Hospital cant choose patients on spec - they have to take them.

It wasn't a baseless threat. Yes, the hospital has to take the patients, but it wasn't the hospital making the threat. It was the part time EMP, Officer Payne, who threatened to send only patients who wouldn't be able to pay their bill to that hospital, and take "rich" insured patients, that would pay their bills, to other hospitals.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Xcathdra

Supreme Court ruling everyone is citing doesnt apply to Utah because Utahs implied consent law is civil and not criminal.

Um, what?

Supreme Court rulings apply to all states.

That's why it's the...Supreme Court of the United States.

Correct however -

When the Supreme Court rules they can narrow the scope of their ruling in their opinions. In the case of Birchfield vs. North Dakota the central issue was the fact North Dakota's implied consent laws made it a criminal offense to refuse to comply with testing.

Their ruling applied to only those states whose implied consent laws have criminal penalties as consequences (unconstitutional). In states whose implied consent laws only apply civil (administrative) penalties, their implied consent laws were found to be constitutional and stand.

Having concluded that the search incident to arrest doctrine does not justify the warrantless taking of a blood sample, we must address respondents’ alternative argu­ment that such tests are justified based on the driver’slegally implied consent to submit to them. It is well estab­lished that a search is reasonable when the subject con­sents, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 219 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, ___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 6–7); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 313 (1978).

Our prior opinions have referred approvingly to the gen­eral concept of implied-consent laws that impose civi lpenalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply. See, e.g., McNeely, supra, at ___ (plural-ity opinion) (slip op., at 18); Neville, supra, at 560. Peti­tioners do not question the constitutionality of those laws, and nothing we say here should be read to cast doubt on them.

The ruling only affected states whose implied consent laws carry a criminal penalty. States whose implied consent laws that only impose civil penalties were found to be constitutional.

a reply to: Liquesence

Yes, it applies in all states.

Utah didn't have a law that was superseded by the SCOTUS ruling, because of the scope of the ruling. So, yes, because of the ruling, Utah can't write a law that conflicts with the ruling. But the law they have on the books didn't, and doesn't.

a reply to: ParkerCramer

and I have stated the officer was wrong in the way he acted and that I would like more information about the situation. Since we only have 20 minutes of video for a situation that lasted well beyond an hour I wanted to see / hear about the lead up. 3 different police agencies were involved in the situation and Salt Lake city's involvement was restricted solely to the blood draw and nothing more. I wanted to know what occurred that led the Lt. telling the detective to arrest the nurse if she continues to interfere. I want to know the history between the Hospital and Salt Lake city pd because in my opinion it looks like there have been serious issues in the past and possibly on the same topic.

Not sure why people cant understand that, let alone acknowledge it.

A person can challenge / question how a law / ruling is applied while at the same time not supporting the person involved in the incident.

People bitch when police rush to judgment yet seem perfectly ok with it in reverse.

originally posted by: FraggleRock
a reply to: windword

That's exactly why he was terminated.

Payne’s actions ”violated several company policies and left a poor image of the company,” Gold Cross President Mike Moffitt said in a Tuesday interview. ”We determined today it was best to part ways.”

“Although Jeff was not working for Gold Cross Ambulance at the time of the incident, we take his inappropriate remarks regarding patient transports seriously,” according to a Tuesday company statement about the termination.

SOURCE

Thank you for the information.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Liquesence

Yes, it applies in all states.

Utah didn't have a law that was superseded by the SCOTUS ruling, because of the scope of the ruling. So, yes, because of the ruling, Utah can't write a law that conflicts with the ruling. But the law they have on the books didn't, and doesn't.

Apparently my choice in phrasing was poor in my explanation so my apologies to everyone for that.

Rush to judgement?????

You realize this took place 3/4 weeks ago, and EVERYONE agrees, the cops F$&@"! Up.
My goodness, have you ever admitted defeat in your life?


Please take a break and go smell the roses!!!

ParkerCramer

MTUBY

reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ParkerCramer
Rush to judgement?????

You realize this took place 3/4 weeks ago, and EVERYONE agrees, the cops F$&@"! Up.
My goodness, have you ever admitted defeat in your life?


Please take a break and go smell the roses!!!

ParkerCramer

MTUBY

reply to: Xcathdra

My bad... Can you provide links to the source where they talk about the investigations being concluded. I was under the impression they were ongoing.