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

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl

Nope not even close.

What parts are you not understanding?

Uh, what question are you answering? "Nope not even close?"

I feel confident in saying that failure to procure justice is far more damaging to society than crime itself.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

Had the nurse told the officer they already took blood it would have ended

It also would of ended if Payne had followed the advice of the investigator who initially requested the sample right?
The investigator advised not to worry about it, they would sort it out and retrieve one later..correct?
www.staradvertiser.com...

But no, Payne was butthurt and had "repect my authoritah" syndrome..end of story.

I don't want to leave out Lt. James Tracy's culpability, he also suffered from Butthurt "respect my authoritah' he might be even more deserving of a swift kick to the curb.

a reply to: vonclod

Really? How?

He is the one who had the nurse released.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl

Nope not even close.

What parts are you not understanding?

Uh, what question are you answering? "Nope not even close?"

I see you have issues following your own conversation as well. If you cant follow then maybe you shouldn't respond eh?

I am not Det. Payne.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How about your read what the dept has concluded about his behaviour?

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's so very nice of him..he released her after ordering his subordinate to make a wrongful arrest..what a hero.
He is on leave due to his poor choice..no? I suspect you will say he is being thrown under the bus..not meaning to put words in your mouth but that seems to be what you say when an LEO is sanctioned.
I wonder if Payne would of done it had the Lt. not ordered him to? especially after being told to drop it, they would find another way.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl

Nope not even close.

What parts are you not understanding?

Uh, what question are you answering? "Nope not even close?"

I see you have issues following your own conversation as well. If you cant follow then maybe you shouldn't respond eh?

I am not Det. Payne.

All you have to do is tell me what question were you answering? To which question did you reply "Nope not even close?"

Fine, let's say I do have trouble following my own conversation. Answer my question, please.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl

Nope not even close.

What parts are you not understanding?

Uh, what question are you answering? "Nope not even close?"

I see you have issues following your own conversation as well. If you cant follow then maybe you shouldn't respond eh?

I am not Det. Payne.

All you have to do is tell me what question were you answering? To which question did you reply "Nope not even close?"

Fine, let's say I do have trouble following my own conversation. Answer my question, please.

He did, but I think you missed it or possibly misunderstood him. You asked, further up the thread, if he was Det. Payne. He said, "Nope, not even close." Then in his last reply he said, "I am not Det. Payne." Hope that clarified for you.

originally posted by: riiver

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl

Nope not even close.

What parts are you not understanding?

Uh, what question are you answering? "Nope not even close?"

I see you have issues following your own conversation as well. If you cant follow then maybe you shouldn't respond eh?

I am not Det. Payne.

All you have to do is tell me what question were you answering? To which question did you reply "Nope not even close?"

Fine, let's say I do have trouble following my own conversation. Answer my question, please.

He did, but I think you missed it or possibly misunderstood him. You asked, further up the thread, if he was Det. Payne. He said, "Nope, not even close." Then in his last reply he said, "I am not Det. Payne." Hope that clarified for you.

Ah I see. Thank you.

My confusion came because the question I asked him required a yes or no answer, if it's being answered coherently. There's no "well I'm close to being Detective Payne but I'm not quite him" etc.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

How about your read what the dept has concluded about his behaviour?

The report you are referring to came from the Citizen Review board. Det. Payne meets with the chief in a few days(if I remember correctly) to give his side of events.

a reply to: vonclod

Ive stated many times now the Detective could have handled the situation differently / better than he did. But I imagine people are so quick to hate police they just see what they want to see when someone present information that doesnt support their agenda.

As has been pointed out numerous times the policy law enforcement was using was completely different than what the Hospital was using and was only changed after the incident occurred. Even then it appears the Hospital and city are still going back and forth over a policy that works for both sides.

I have explained several times now the implications of that fact and people just want to ignore / dismiss it.

The nurse was released after she told the Lt., who came to the scene, that medical already took a blood draw for their side of things. That information resulted in her being released and potential charges being left to detectives for review.

It is not the job of a nurse to play point-counterpoint on criminal law or the functions of a law enforcement investigation. She is to note her objections in the patient chart. Secondly had she told the detective they al;ready got blood it would have turned out differently.

Its why I maintain fault lies with both parties, law enforcement AND the medical staff. Technically what she did when being taken into custody was resisting an arrest. That is a separate charge and is not conditioned on status of the arrest itself. She also obstructed, which is what she was initially detained for.

As I stated, and others ignored, there is a history between the PD and Hospital of them not getting along. I can state first hand that Hospitals mistakenly think their policies apply to law enforcement agencies and that they trump state or local law (and they do not). Medical staff is also under the mistaken impression that their profession somehow makes them immune from arrest and it does not.

medical is their to do a job.
law enforcement is there to do a job.

They are not the same job and communication is important in both directions.

In the end though the job of law enforcement is going to take priority over that of medical with very few exceptions (patient care being one of those exceptions). No where did medical staff cite patient care as a reason to deny access to the patient.

This was solely a criminal law debate that never should have happened in the manner it did, from either side.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As has been stated numerous times, Det. Payne was told to forget it when he relayed to the requesting authority that the patient was unconscious and the hospital was refusing to let him draw blood.
Why did he not go home at that point and let the requesting agency do their own work to get the information they needed for the investigation? You have yet to address that little fact.

“My investigator [tells Payne], ‘Hey, don’t worry about it, we’ll go another route. No worries,’” Jensen told The Salt Lake Tribune Wednesday.

www.sltrib.com...

Could he be the source of the "history" you've built in your own private narrative of this flustercluck?

a reply to: Xcathdra
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, police policy is not the law. It doesn't matter what policy they were operating under.

The SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that blood draws are invasive and fall under the 4th Amendment. Said rulings have consistently cautioned that warrants are required unless excused by circumstance

The circumstance that has been upheld as permitting a blood draw without a warrant was when a conscious person whose blood was to be drawn was under arrest because said person reeked of alcohol, along with the time of day and delay in testing.

The patient in this circumstance was comatose, victim of a head-on collision involving someone fleeing the police who crossed the center line, and not suspected of any crime or under arrest.

The barest justification that has been offered is that:
A) It's allegedly common to do blood draws in Utah.
B) Commercial truck drivers involved in accidents require drug testing.
C) Police policy.

Which of these supersedes the 4th Amendment?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

How about your read what the dept has concluded about his behaviour?

The report you are referring to came from the Citizen Review board. Det. Payne meets with the chief in a few days(if I remember correctly) to give his side of events.

www.deseretnews.com...

Payne was found to have violated the department's communications policy, specifically sending inappropriate materials; the policy on discrimination and sexual harassment; and failing to respect co-workers

I don't hate cops. One of my close friends whom I teach folk and freestyle wrestling with is an officer.

I can look at the tape and see one obese officer and another jerk totally out of shape and abusing the authority the social contract gives him and know who is at fault.

Fat lazy cops are not good cops. They are the cops the unions protect who are the equivalent of bad teachers.

Tell me if your not a make believe officer how good is your marksmanship when your heart is pounding and your out of breath?

How good are you at controlling adrenaline dumps and maintaining control if tour out of shape?

a reply to: dreamingawake

Why is any one surprised? That's what will happen to you when you stand up for what is right. You will be arrested and what that entails may be hurtful, violent and the list goes on.

Who is in power...not you obviously.

a reply to: diggindirt

He was never told to let it go and the other department noted that when they gave their statement to the media.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Not true read the article, it clearly states the police chief of the Logan PD (requesting agency) clearly says he does not know why they (payne and tracy) continued to pursue it after being told they would go another direction.

a reply to: Greven

Your right police policy is not the law. However police policy applies to the police and Hospital policy does not. Secondly law enforcement are the ones required by law to enforce the laws and not medical staff.

Scotus has not "repeatedly" upheld that. aside from Mcneely N. Dakote is the only other ruling dealing with it and was due to states like N. Dakota who have criminal penalties for refusing to comply with implied consent laws.

Up until this latest ruling states implied consent laws allowed a blood draw as one of the valid tests law enforcement could request. Utahs implied consent law only applied civil (administrative) penalties for refusal and the scotus ruling upheld those laws as constitutional.

Exigent circumstance is a valid exception to the warrant requirement and its up to law enforcement to make that decision, including the justification, and not medical staff. Each case is revived on an individual basis and the scotus ruling in N. Dakota states as much. An exigent circumstance exception can apply to unconscious patients and if you read the entire ruling you would know that.

The ruling in Mcneely only revolved around blood metabolizing alcohol as not qualifying as an exigent circumstance because it is a natural body process and not an intentional destruction of evidence. Again you would know this if you read the ruling.

Yes - victim of a head on crash that was intentional, making it a 1st / 2nd degree assault case on the driver of the semi (victim).

Which supersedes the 4th amendment? Well in Mcneely and N. Dakota scotus said an exception to the warrant requirement would be an exigent circumstance and they left it undefined and for very good reason. It is left to the officer to decide if the situation is an exigent circumstance - NOT medical staff. It is up to the court to decide if the exigent circumstance is valid or not - NOT medical staff.

It is not the purpose of medical staff to interfere in a law enforcement investigation. Anything collected by law enforcement that is in violation of the 4th amendment / active laws becomes inadmissible in court and any and all evidence derived from the evidence disqualified is considered fruit of the poisonous tree and is also thrown out (some exceptions exist, like inevitable discovery etc but again, thats for a court to decide).

Under Utah law who is mandated to investigate suspected violations of criminal law - Law Enforcement or Medical Staff?

Under Utah Law is is responsible for and authorized to deny a person their freedom via an arrest - Law Enforcement or Medical Staff?

Under scotus rulings what happens when a trained professional, like a police officer or medical staff, acts outside their level of expertise or "switches hats" in the middle of a situation?

Here is the thing -
It is not the job of Medical Staff to tell law enforcement what they can or cannot do. They can object and cite their policy and then they are required to chart it if law enforcement disregards it. The ONLY time medical can deny law enforcement access is if they can cite medical reasons for doing so and only then the patients life must be in imminent danger. Even then, depending on the situation, law enforcement can still push the issue under dying declarations or the retrieval of information that involves another persons whose life is in imminent danger.

The Hospital policy does NOT make any exceptions per the scotus ruling and that Hospital policy wont protect a nurse who tries to hide behind it and is subsequently arrested and charged because of an exigent circumstance.

You want to try and make a black and white line take a roll of the dice. In the end the judgment of law enforcement in those situations will take precedence over Hospital policy.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


Not true read the article, it clearly states the police chief of the Logan PD (requesting agency) clearly says he does not know why they (payne and tracy) continued to pursue it after being told they would go another direction.

Yes true -

source

ogan Police Chief Gary Jensen told CNN on Wednesday that Payne had called a Logan detective to say that he was having a tough time getting the blood. According to Jensen, the detective told Payne not to worry about it, because Logan could get the blood through other means.

“He didn’t tell him you must cease and desist; he simply said, ‘Don’t worry about it, we’ll go another way,’” Jensen said in the CNN interview. “I just don’t believe [Payne’s] actions were in the best interest of the patient, the nurses or law enforcement, quite frankly. He could have just packed up and gone home.”