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

a reply to: FraggleRock

The nurse in question was another medical supervisor and their comments are to be considered as it gives a better understanding of mindset and intent on part of medical.

and as arrogant as it sounds the Lt. is correct. A Hospital policy does not supersede law nor do their policies apply to people who dont work for the health system. Even then their own university police department, who was on scene, told the nurse it was a criminal matter and they would not interfere. Their chief also stated their policy was different than the Hospitals, and they are employed by the same entity.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The patient was involved in an assault by the driver who was fleeing from police. When you use your vehicle to purposely cause injury to someone else it is a crime. As part of that investigation law enforcement meets criteria under HIPAA for PHI disclosure.

No it does not. Public safety is the threshold for law enforcement intruding on a victim's right. Law enforcement can't force a rape test, for example. This situation didn't meet the threshold for lawful, unauthorized disclosure.

The results of the blood test can be subpoenaed. All they need to tell law enforcement is blood was taken.

A subpoena for what? They couldn't even get a warrant for a blood draw. What do they need a subpoena for?

a reply to: windword

It does as the person was a victim of an assault being investigated by law enforcement. Disclosure is required under law.

A subpoena for the results of the Hospital blood test if needed. Learn the difference between a subpoena and a warrant would you please. Contrary to what you might think they are completely different legal documents serving different purposes.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not arguing the legalize of the situation and never was. I simply don't see where there being a history of interference with police investigations by this particular hospital is confirmed one way or the other. You do, I don't. So we're at an impasse. Continuing to "butt heads" would be an exercise in futility. So I will merely offer a cheers

a reply to: FraggleRock

Fair enough...

a reply to: Xcathdra

It does as the person was a victim of an assault being investigated by law enforcement. Disclosure is required under law.

BS! Disclosure of what?

Like I said, law enforcement can't compel a rape kit. In this case, the blood draw was not lawful. Forced medical case disclosure wasn't lawful either. There was no exigent circumstances, and there was no risk to public safety or health, which is the threshold for unauthorized medical disclosure.

The nurse isn't to blame in this situation at all, not one iota. This is 100% on the PD and their officers.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SRPrime

Read the thread before making claims that arent supported please. There is an exigent circumstance exception to a warrant. The Lt. also cited the driver was a CDL holder, which falls under different federal laws and not state laws.

Finally all the nurse had to do was tell the detective medical already took blood which would have ended the situation right then and there. Instead she chose to escalate with her actions. As I stated, and its now confirmed, there is a history between the Hospital and SLCPD with the hospital interfering in police investigations.

Are the police the ones responsible for obtaining a blood sample for CDL holders?

That seems kind of odd to me.

Zaph is correct in general however SLCPD policy requires a blood draw for law enforcement purposes be done by a member of their blood draw unit. That info is also included in the full CPRB release.

I'm not certain what your point is in bringing up police department policy here...

Is there some statute that requires the police department to obtain a blood sample for any CDL holder involved in an accident?

Federal law yes.
In Utah its a matter of course to obtain blood draws for accidents with fatalities.

Finally asked as to why police are the ones doing a blood draw. I was explaining why that is - SLCPD policy.

Had you followed the conversation my response would make sense to you.

You've entirely missed my point: department policy is not law. It can never be law. It can only follow law.

Speaking of law, what do you suppose courts say about warrantless blood draws?

In light of the foregoing, it is difficult for us to imagine that the United States Supreme Court could muster the assurance that the consequences of alcohol dissipation are so great and the prospects for prompt warrant acquisition so remote that per se exigent circumstance status be awarded to seizures of blood for the purpose of gathering blood-alcohol evidence.   Accordingly, we decline to grant per se exigent circumstance status to warrantless seizures of blood evidence.

This is the Utah SC. The SCOTUS took a case on similar circumstances: Missouri v. McNeely:

The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant require­ment for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. We conclude that it does not, and we hold, con­sistent with general Fourth Amendment principles, that exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.

Do you suppose the officer faced an emergency situation?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Then they are responsible for arranging the tests. If they are independent, working off a load board, then they are the company, and are responsible for all company related activities under the FMCSA.

a reply to: Xcathdra
And yet you can weave a whole bloody tale of a "history" between the nurse and the detective from a couple of comments in a report----

Please continue chasing your own tail, I'm enjoying this twisting and flailing in the wind.

"Biskupski: Officers violated 6 policies in Alex Wubbels' arrest"

The investigations revealed that Payne and his watch commander, Lt. James Tracy, violated six specific policies, Biskupski said.

Those policies include conduct unbecoming by a police employee, courtesy in public contacts, policy regarding arrests, misdemeanor citations, situations requiring a report, law enforcement code of ethics and city policy regarding standards of conduct for employees, the mayor said.

Source
Talk about an abuse of power.

a reply to: dreamingawake

This cop assaulted her. He should be arrested and charged himself. (If anybody else did what he did, they would be).
Wearing a badge doesn`t give him the right to break the law.
Betcha he won`t be though, he`ll get a few weeks paid leave, a slapped wrist and a nice cushy desk job...

a reply to: diggindirt

Yes I can actually.

a reply to: Greven

You failed to follow the conversation. As I said, reread it and catch up.

I am aware of the scotus ruling in Birchfield vs. N. Dakota. If you take the time to read the entire opinion you would see a warrantless blood draw is still acceptable with exigent circumstances. That ruling found states whose implied consent laws have a criminal penalty attached to be unconstitutional. States whose implied consent laws have only a civil (administrative) penalty were ruled constitutional.

If you researched further you would see Utahs implied consent laws only use civil (administrative) penalties.

Just like the ruling in Birchfield, Mcneely also has an exigent circumstance exception to the ruling.

Not sure why you guys keep ignoring that fact.

and to bring it back around all the nurse had to do was tell the detective they already drew blood. The situation would have ended right then and there. Instead the nurse dragged it out and was a contributing factor to the incident.

a reply to: windword

God your inability to follow a conversation is getting old.

Disclosure that medical staff already took a blood sample. They should have told the detective that when he showed up for the blood draw.

The nurses actions are in fact a contributing factor to the overall situation.

It is not her job to delve into criminal law and how an officer does their job.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Nope. Nurse Wubbles had no obligation to inform Officer Payne that a blood panel had been done or what medication he was given or any other test or treatment he may have undergone. Further, she would have been in violation of HIPAA laws if she had. She had a duty to protect her patient's privacy.

Officer Payne had no lawful right to any of that information. There were no exigent circumstances and there was no risk to public health and safety.

Since Officer Payne also worked for an ambulance company as an EMT, for the past 10 years, one would think that he already knew that the hospital would automatically do a blood panel before doing anything else! That's common knowledge.

So, blaming the nurse for Payne and Tracy's screw up is just you moving the goal posts, desperately trying to prove your bazaar theory that the hospital and Nurse Wubbles had some long standing anti-cop agenda.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

You failed to follow the conversation. As I said, reread it and catch up.

I am aware of the scotus ruling in Birchfield vs. N. Dakota. If you take the time to read the entire opinion you would see a warrantless blood draw is still acceptable with exigent circumstances. That ruling found states whose implied consent laws have a criminal penalty attached to be unconstitutional. States whose implied consent laws have only a civil (administrative) penalty were ruled constitutional.

If you researched further you would see Utahs implied consent laws only use civil (administrative) penalties.

Just like the ruling in Birchfield, Mcneely also has an exigent circumstance exception to the ruling.

Not sure why you guys keep ignoring that fact.

and to bring it back around all the nurse had to do was tell the detective they already drew blood. The situation would have ended right then and there. Instead the nurse dragged it out and was a contributing factor to the incident.

Why do you think exigent circumstance applies here?
That exception was outlined in Schmerber v. California, but there is an important consideration you are overlooking: probable cause. The officer admitted the patient was not a suspect in a crime and not under arrest.

Further, as explained in Birchfield,

In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), for instance, a man sustained injuries in a car accident and was transported to the hospital. While there, a police officer arrested him for drunk driving and ordered a warrantless blood test to measure his blood alcohol content. This Court noted that although the warrant requirement generally applies to postarrest blood tests, a warrantless search was justified in that case because several hours had passed while the police investigated the scene of the crime and Schmerber was taken to the hospital, precluding a timely securing of a warrant.

SCOTUS has been very clear about this: warrantless blood draws are not allowed unless very specific circumstances exist.

a reply to: windword

You have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to HIPAA.

a reply to: Greven

Which was my point...

You guys keep claiming a arrant only bs narrative when its not true.

You guys have still failed to address the fact getting blood from drivers involved in fatality accidents is common in Utah / this region. So why did they all of a sudden decide not to allow law enforcement to do it?

As I said there is a history between the Hospital and Law Enforcement in this area where the Hospital thinks its policies apply to people from other departments.

At the time this occurred pd policy was different.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you read the report? The police dept literally says their policies were broken. The police dept own policies were broken by the officers by the police department own assessment.

Can you explain that?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: windword

You have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to HIPAA.

You are the one who is ignorant of HIPAA compliance and the law. He did not have a warrant, or any other documentation that entitled him to that information.