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

a reply to: Xcathdra

www.npr.org...

The Salt Lake City hospital where a police officer roughly arrested a nurse who was protecting her patient's rights in July will no longer allow law enforcement agents inside its patient care areas. They'll now have to check in rather than enter through the emergency room.

and from same source

"Law enforcement who come to the hospital for any reason involving patients will be required to check in to the front desk of the hospital," said chief nursing officer Margaret Pearce of the University of Utah Hospital. "There, a hospital house supervisor will meet the officers to work through each request." Hospital officials say they created the policy one day after the July incident in which nurse Alex Wubbels refused to allow a police investigator identified as Jeff Payne to get a blood sample from a patient who was injured in a deadly collision with another driver. Wubbels was following the hospital's policy (and a recent Supreme Court decision) that requires either a warrant, the patient's consent or the patient being under arrest for such a sample to be obtained legally. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment bars blood tests from being obtained without a warrant in drunken-driving cases.

then why is every news agency running with the same story? and if the cheif of police is agreeing to this policy which apparently they are they seem to be able to do what you claim is impossible?


www.cnn.com... why then did the police cheif apologize for his officers conduct? and talk about a policy that was agreed to a YEAR before the incident occurred?

Wubbels' attorney, Karra Porter, said Friday the university and Salt Lake City police had agreed to the policy more than a year ago and "the officers here appeared to be unaware of" it. "There's no dispute that the blood draw policy was jointly prepared and in effect for quite some time," Porter told CNN.

and as its apparently being agreed to by both parties on the NEW policy it seems a moot point as if the cops agree to it , seems that regardless of legallity the police are bending over backwards to appease the hospital over the embarrassment the officer caused their department

www.washingtonpost.com... 34901c7 says they wont be given free reign in the hospital and will now have to check in with senior hospital staff not nurses if they wish to interact with patients

www.usnews.com... another link

and unless your saying every single news source from the blaze,Fox, to cnn,huffpost,aljazeira,wapo,NPR and countless other sources all have the wrong information i think you are quite wrong on the issue at hand.

www.nurse.com...

Code of ethics The American Nurses Association Code of Ethics provides the ethical guide for nurses in these types of situations. Provision 1.4, The Right to Self-Determination, speaks to the respect for autonomy. In this case, the respect for autonomy was at risk. This provision states that patient decisions are to be autonomous, which requires the patient to have adequate and accurate information, and their decision needs to be voluntary. In clinical practice, this is gained through the informed consent process. The emphasis for respect of autonomy, voluntariness and informed consent was in large part a response to the Nazi medical atrocities of World War II (ANA, 2015). During this time, nurses were complicit in these atrocities. If voluntariness cannot be obtained, then a surrogate can be the decision maker. The role of the surrogate is to make decisions that are in the best interests of the patient. The second provision that applies is Provision 2.1, Primacy of the Patient’s Interests. Here, the Code of Ethics notes that since the nurse’s primary commitment is to the patient, it carries the greatest weight and can lead to conflict (ANA, 2015).

so she followed one of the corner stones of medical ethics and thus so far has been vindicated in her actions furthermore EVEN if he had gotten the blood it would have been rightfully thrown out as a violation of the law

www.foxnews.com... nt.html

www.chicagotribune.com...

The hospital and the law in Utah and nationwide require police to have a warrant or permission from the patient to draw a blood sample in such circumstances. Payne had neither.

guess you can email all the news agencies and try to "correct" their error but with this many running with it i dont see that happening

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Yeah if you had read my post you would realize I was talking about the day the incident occurred and not weeks later. At the time the policies werent the same. Both the Mayor and Chief stated this when, after the incident occurred, they said they were reviewing their policies to bring them in line with the Hospital. That took a few weeks and from the articles it still doesnt look like a new policy that both sides accept has been agreed to.

Also the info about the policy being agreed to came from the nurses lawyer and not the pd.

Brown said the department has apologized and that its "blood draw policy" has been replaced with a new one that officers are now using.

source

Within 24 hours of this incident, he said, the Salt Lake City Police Department took steps to ensure this will never happen again.

"To date, we have suspended the officer from the blood draw program. We have already replaced our blood draw policy with a new policy. All remaining officers on the blood draw program have reviewed, and are operating under the new policy and protocol," said Brown.

source

Brown and the mayor of Salt Lake City have apologized for the incident and changed their policies to mirror hospital protocols.

source

So next time please read and understand my post.

The stuff in your post occurred after the incident happened.

a reply to: Xcathdra

fox8.com...

Hospital policy specified police needed either a judge’s order or the patient’s consent, or the patient needed to be under arrest, before obtaining a blood sample. “I’m just trying to do what I’m supposed to do. That’s all,” Wubbels tells the officers, according to the body camera video. The full video of the incident as captured by a police body camera can be viewed here. Wubbels’ attorney, Karra Porter, said Friday the university and Salt Lake City police had agreed to the policy more than a year ago and “the officers here appeared to be unaware of” it. “There’s no dispute that the blood draw policy was jointly prepared and in effect for quite some time,” Porter told CNN.

so this link seems to disprove that as the policy was in place for over a year unless your saying a card holding member of the BAR of Utah is lying to multiple media outlets

i have yet to see one link proving that the lawyer ,the hosptial or its staff lied about anything but lots of links saying he violated the policy his department and the hospital had reached over a year ago
www.ubmedia.biz...

The videos show that Wubbels provided the police a print out of hospital policy clearly stating that a blood sample can not be taken without patient consent, a warrant, or if the patient is under arrest. Her hospital supervisor then confirmed the policy to police via a cell phone. The hospital policy has been affirmed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2016.

suspect was not under arrest,had not consented and they provided a print out of the policy to the officer to blatantly ignored it eve nafter her direct superior confirmed it, and IF its as you said they both lied how come no charges are forthcoming against the hosptial the nurse or her supervisor as lying to the police tends to be a crime?


to clarify the policy the officer ignored was in place for over a year,since the incident they have changed it twice,once to clarify and get more training to police and another telling them where they can and cant go in a hopsital with out checking in with higherups in the hospital adminstration and baring nurses from even interacting with police forces

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

From your own source -

Brown said the department has apologized and that its “blood draw policy” has been replaced with a new one that officers are now using.

His statement did not mention the policy that was in place at the time of Wubbels’ arrest or why police would need a new one.

The policies were different according to the Chief and mayor.

The only ones claiming the policies were the same was the nurse and her lawyer. The Chief and Mayor apparently have facts to the contrary.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

It's kind of amusing that you wave "card carrying member of the bar" around, as if somehow lawyers are the last bastion of honesty and truth. Lawyers are just as likely to lie and obfuscate on behalf of their client as anybody else is.

It's mind boggling to me that some folks are willing to accept one comment from one person at face value but either ignore or dismiss other comments from other people.

The fact that the chief and mayor have both stated the PD wasn't using the policy and that the PD has changed its policy is as good as an admission that they were using bad policy. It's ludicrous why people would rather try to ignore that instead of using it to say "see, they even admit they weren't using a good policy to begin with."

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

It's kind of amusing that you wave "card carrying member of the bar" around, as if somehow lawyers are the last bastion of honesty and truth. Lawyers are just as likely to lie and obfuscate on behalf of their client as anybody else is.

I'd go further and say that lawyers are considered one of the least trusted members of society, equal with politicians and criminals.

The pecking order for lies is politicians, police, criminals, lawyers.

The clarification or revision of the protocol doesn't make the nurse at fault.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You contradict yourself. Like I said, She was calmly stating the hospital rules before they went ballistic on her.

a reply to: roadgravel

Nobody discussing the "pecking order" has said that it did.

a reply to: Shamrock6

There has been a bit of a tendency to try to push some of it off toward her, from what I have seen, by painting her in poorer light. A deflection technique.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

Well, in this instance, though, the hospital policy was within the law, from every single angle that I've seen this story discussed--it was the officers who were outside of the law in both arresting Wubbles and demanding a blood draw. So, in this particular instance, the "major issue" was with police and police only, not with Wubbles or the hospital policy.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

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.

For starters, Wubbles was not "hid[ing] behind policy," she was doing her job protecting her patient's rights against an officer who was ignorant to the updated laws--ignorance to the law is no defense.

As for the policy ignoring warrantless blood draws--unless they removed the 'suspect is under arrest' portion of the policy, I have to disagree with your assessment, as they specifically note that, if the patient is under arrest, they acknowledge that they can do a blood draw, even on an unconscious person (I assume, since it was implied from the video).

Again, unless I'm missing something here...which I'm open to, after my mistaken resisting-arrest argument.

(also, sorry if you've already addressed this post numerous time)

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Shamrock6

There has been a bit of a tendency to try to push some of it off toward her, from what I have seen, by painting her in poorer light. A deflection technique.

Unfortunately for the so-called 'authorities', that sht doesn't fly with most people anymore.

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?

reply to: Xcathdra

Damn...calm down.

In these instances, I approach things very similarly to Xcathdra, where waiting is the generally always the best option while investigations are ongoing, and it's generally ALWA YS a good policy to disregard the Court of Public Opinion, as it is generally populated by idiots.

That said, and especially at this point, I personally believe that all criteria has been met to show that the nurse was legally and morally in the right on this one, and that the officer acted like an utterly unprofessional jackass who just couldn't stand to be told no (and who was operating under obsolete law, which reflects poor training, especially for a part-time EMT).

I don't really see anything else that can come out that would be a game changer for the officer(s), so that's why I've made up my mind, but if Xcathdra wants to wait until the game is officially over, why the hell must you be so hostile over it? It's a perfectly logical approach.

And, yes, three or four weeks post incident when there are multiple investigation going on is generally a jump to conclusion...generally.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

You contradict yourself. Like I said, She was calmly stating the hospital rules before they went ballistic on her.

they went to take her into custody and she freaked out.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you and I have already stated the officer should have handled the situation differently. My issue though are the differing policies, the fact they made the detective wait an hour while trying to get an admin on the phone, the fact he wasnt demanding any medical staff take the blood as he was certified and was there to do it himself, the fact the draw request came from Logan pd, who is responsible for drafting the warrant and not salt lake city pd and the fact we dont have the entire story from Utah Highway Patrol, who engaged the pursuit. The fact the nurse is making the talk show rounds and releasing the video all the while leaving out key facts from her story that place certain portions of this mess into context. I said it before and I will say it again, based on experience there is a history between this Hospital and Law Enforcement where they havent always gotten along. I make that statement also based on the fact his Lt. ordered him to arrest the nurse if she continued to interfere.

As has been pointed out medical and law enforcement generally get along and its rare you have a medical staff member arrested. Thats what caught my attention and was wondering the history involved if a member of their command staff ordered the arrest of a medical staff member on the job. Several articles have stated that PD's in the area routinely request SLCPD do blood draws for case they are working, which includes DWI, DUI and fatality accidents. Why did they throw a stink in this particular case? Could it be because the patient was also a police officer?

What happens to the officer happens to the officer. I just feel there is more we need to know that will better place everyones actions into context - Law enforcement AND the Hospitals.

as i said many pages ago there is a legal concept known as "acting in good faith".

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability." (Brinegar v. U.S.)

And in another case, the court said, "The penalties visited upon the government, and in turn upon the public, because its officers have violated the law must bear some relation to the purposes which the law is to serve." (U.S. v. Ceccolini)

If the Logan officer working the fatality accident and wanted the blood draw what exactly did he say to his dispatcher to request SLCPD do the draw? What did his dispatcher tell the SLCPD dispatcher? What did the SLCPD dispatcher tell there officer.

When requesting an officer to take a specific action, and that request is coming from another officer, we act in good faith that the request is a valid one since they have the information and we dont.

Look at it this way -
If the detective took the blood without a warrant and the conditions at the accident scene did not meet exigent circumstances and the federal law on required testing for commercial drivers is somehow invalidated the following happens-

A court will rule the blood draw was an illegal search and therefore excluded for being used in any criminal prosecution and any and all evidence gained as a result of or by extension related to that blood draw is fruit of the poisonous tree and is also excluded from being used.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

You contradict yourself. Like I said, She was calmly stating the hospital rules before they went ballistic on her.

they went to take her into custody and she freaked out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

You contradict yourself. Like I said, She was calmly stating the hospital rules before they went ballistic on her.

they went to take her into custody and she freaked out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

yup.. You apparently failed to read the posts and the article on that point. She was taken outside to prevent her from causing a scene in the ER. She tried to get away from the officer when he went to take her into custody. What part is confusing you?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Why did they throw a stink in this particular case? Could it be because the patient was also a police officer?

I think that the PD threw a stink over it because, yes, the victim in the accident just happened to be a part-time officer--a stink that was inappropriate, if that's the reason.

I know that the hospital threw a stink over it because--well, it was an illegal request/demand from the PD.

I just feel there is more we need to know that will better place everyones actions into context - Law enforcement AND the Hospitals.

Sure, I can agree with that, but context is irrelevant to the letter of the law--at best, the context will only provide mitigating circumstances for the actions, but that doesn't change the inappropriateness of the arrest of the nurse, as she was well within the law in her actions.

When requesting an officer to take a specific action, and that request is coming from another officer, we act in good faith that the request is a valid one since they have the information and we dont.

That's all well and good, but when presented multiple times with a read verbatim from the policy of the hospital that aligned with state law, the officer should have erred on the side of caution and requested a warrant for the blood, plain and simple.

The patient was the victim of the accident...his blood was relatively pointless to have, except only as a CYA attempt by the PD in hopes that he had drugs or alcohol in the system and they could shift some blame for the accident...unless you have a more valid reason that I can't think of.

Look at it this way -
If the detective took the blood without a warrant and the conditions at the accident scene did not meet exigent circumstances and the federal law on required testing for commercial drivers is somehow invalidated the following happens-

A court will rule the blood draw was an illegal search and therefore excluded for being used in any criminal prosecution and any and all evidence gained as a result of or by extension related to that blood draw is fruit of the poisonous tree and is also excluded from being used.

Look at it this way: To some of us, preserving the absolute protection against unreasonable search/seizure (which unlawful blood draw falls under) is worth fighting for, not just allowing to happen and hope that the judicial system throws out the illegally obtained evidence.

And that's really the crux of the issue, IMHO: The nurse was right in her refusal, the hospital policy was drafted within the confines of the law, and a patient's rights were protected against an apparently poorly trained officer who used way more force than necessary to arrest Nurse Wubbles.

I'm not okay with illegally obtained evidence, and having worked in courtrooms with attorneys on both sides of the room and directly for judges, I know how much two of those three people abhor illegally obtained evidence as well.

a reply to: Xcathdra

She was taken outside to prevent her from causing a scene in the ER.

The cops 'caused a scene', not her.

Inside a hospital, directed at staff, no less.

Why you think this went viral?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

She was taken outside to prevent her from causing a scene in the ER.

The cops 'caused a scene', not her.

Inside a hospital, directed at staff, no less.

Why you think this went viral?

Because the nurse and er lawyer wanted it to while at the same time failing to provide all relevant info in her story..