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

transportation.ky.gov... i am unsure what FRA but assume its federal rail authority? is in this instance but it seems to imply that only they and the cost gaurd want blood tests done for post accident testing

Sectio n VI. Drug and Alcohol T esting R equirements What specimens are collected fo r DOT drug and alcohol tests? DOT drug tests are conducted only using urine specim ens. DOT alcohol screening tests ar e conducted using eithe r breath or saliva. DOT alcohol confirm ation tests m ust be c onducted using Evidential Breath Testing Devices (EB Ts) that only analyze b reath. In additi on to urine testing for drugs, th e FRA also requires blood specimens for its Post-Accident testing. The USCG permits collection of blood specimens for its Serious Marine Incident (SMI) testing.

so if im reading that right only urine tests seem to be used to for post accident testing and yet they wanted his blood?
transportation.ky.gov...< br /> its in chart form so it may not transfer correctly but it seems that most agencies dont do post accidnt blood testing?

DOT Age ncy Specimen Type Time Fra me for C ollectio n FMC SA, FA A, FT A, PHMSA, USCG Urine for drug testing. Up to 32 hours from time of event. FMC SA, FA A, FTA, PHMS A Saliva o r bre ath f or alcoh ol screen ing ; breath for alcohol conf irm ation testing. Within 2 hours, but can not exceed 8 hours from tim e of event.

this can be viewed on the PDF on page 18 under the header "post accident testing" as i doubt my most will come out how i wanted it to

fox13now.com... guess the truck driver is still in critical condition,i am unsure if he has woken up or if he is still in a medically induced coma .he has burns over 46% of his body and a 22% chance of survival

www.deseretnews.com...

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Very sad. This poor guy has been the victim all around. Badly injured through no fault of his own, then this whole fiasco. Hopefully he will make a full recovery. Prayers for him.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
fox13now.com... guess the truck driver is still in critical condition,i am unsure if he has woken up or if he is still in a medically induced coma .he has burns over 46% of his body and a 22% chance of survival

www.deseretnews.com...

Terrible! And this is the person who ahole Detective Payne wanted to barge in on and take blood from even though he was told to drop it. Needs to be fired, along with his superior, and the wussy cop there with him who just let it all happen. And Xcatheter, before you come in and repeat the BS you've been spouting over and over for 64 pages: if you actually ARE a cop, you shouldn't be. Your defense of this cop with insecurity issues so bad he can't take no, plus the attitude you display that cops are free to interpret the law however they wish, proves you utterly and totally unfit for any position of authority. Ever.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
nypost.com... well now the officer wants to apologize to the nurse

The Salt Lake City cop who was caught on video dragging a nurse from a hospital and cuffing her now wants to apologize for his actions, according to a report. “Jeff would love the chance to sit down and apologize for what happened here,” attorney Greg Skordas said about his client, Detective Jeff Payne, KUTV reported. “If he could do this over he would do it over differently,” he added. “There is no question that Jeff made a mistake. I can understand the public being upset this was a troubling event.” Meanwhile, it has emerged that Payne was previously reprimanded for sexually harassing a female co-worker, according to police documents.

so he wants to apologize for his conduct and how poorly he handled the situation

nurse won this big time and the city is lucky that as of yet she has yet to decide to sue . and the police cheif is still deciding weather or not to fire the officer ,his LT is still on leave

Fire them both. He only wants to apologize AFTER the investigations completed and found him in the wrong. If they keep both these guys on the force, they are beyond redemption at that police force.

Do we think Xcatheter is going to pull a disappearing act from this thread now, or will he continue to insult everyone's reading comprehension while he copy-and-pastes his copy-and-pasted posts from the prior 64 pages?

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


I am not normally one to call for someones head, but due to the fact he is wearing a badge, and what he did and his total lack of knowledge of the law this guy should be fired and charged for what he did here. Essentially he illegally kidnapped her by force while armed. And she should sue the hell out of the PD seeing as this order came from the top down, the Watch commander and Lt that were ordering him should be fired as well. He should not be entrusted with upholding the law if he does not even know the law he is sworn to uphold

Absolutely.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
nurse won this big time and the city is lucky that as of yet she has yet to decide to sue . and the police cheif is still deciding weather or not to fire the officer ,his LT is still on leave

No, no, no. You don't sue now. You sit and be patient. Wait until the investigations are complete. Both internal and criminal. Wait until the county attorney's office makes a decision to press charges (she'll be notified as part of the victim's rights process). Wait through the criminal trial if they do. Longer the better.
THEN when it's all done and you have pages of reports and transcripts already produced for you, then you sue. You subpoena all the records from the applicable agencies. You get copies of all the testimony and depositions from the criminal trial, statements made in the investigation, his report together, et al and then you depose him. Everyone else has done the hard work for you, and he can't change his story because it was given under oath at a criminal trial. He can't impeach his own testimony without completely destroying his credibility for his current testimony.
Even if they didn't meet the burden for criminal prosecution, you have the benefit of a lower threshold in civil court. And you ream every inaccuracy and omission in his report, every slight variation in his latest deposition to his statements and testimony a half-year or more earlier and jam it down his throat in front of a jury after you play each of the separate recordings for them. You then replay key aspects of the video where they failed to adhere to policy, and where they admit a judge would never give them a warrant, but decide they somehow have PC in spite of this to misapply implied consent towards a victim no one thinks committed a crime. Same for the lieutenant.

originally posted by: MrRCflying
a reply to: Greven

I had a big long reply here, then I accidentally closed the window. Doh!!!

Not wanting to repeat everything, I will just leave it at this. Xcathdra is wrong. The two investigations have completed, and have concluded both officers were in the wrong. The Police Civilian Review board, in no uncertain terms, state that the "law" says blood cannot be taken without one of the three conditions being met. In this case they were not met. It even goes on to say that Payne being on the "blood draw" team, should have known this and even "more so" than the nurse or civilians.

You can read the news article, and the reports from the investigations here:

fox13now.com...

www.slcdocs.com...

localtvkstu.files.wordpress.com...

There is no argument now. I don't think anyone can argue that the officers were acting within the law any more.

Thanks to you and others.

Some relevant excerpts follow:

S speaks of Exigent Circumstances and Implied Consent and says "I am either going with blood in vials or a body in tow." He further adds, "This is not the way I wanted this to go."

S here is the officer in question. This was the first attempt at justifying a search and seizure.

W then speaks softly to S about getting a Search Warrant with S telling him the other agency does not have Probable Cause.

W is an unnamed officer who arrived to assist S and surprise surprise, no probable cause existed for a search/seizure. Without probable cause, exigent circumstances do not exist and a warrant is rather unlikely. The remaining justification was implied consent, which it seems (like exigent circumstance) was proffered without checking anything - until after the nurse was arrested.

At this point, the officers are trying to determine if V has a Utah Driver's License and then S and S1 speak again. S1 says "...I am burned if this lady is right..." and explains to S that since a blood sample had already been taken, they can get access to it later.

V is the unconscious patient, who has been reported elsewhere as being from Idaho; as a reserve police officer there, it is highly likely that his driver's license is not from Utah. S1 is the named watch commander. After realizing probable cause didn't exist, they tried to find some other justification for the demanded blood draw, and soon came to the conclusion that they might actually be in the wrong.

What is disturbing is that they, upon more than just the officer realizing there was no probable cause, continued allowing the unlawful actions of the officer. See, implied consent also requires probable cause:

41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
(1)
(a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
(i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, or 53-3-231;
(ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or
(iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in violation of Section 41-6a-517.
(b) A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).

Therefore, probable cause must exist in order for implied consent to exist for a search/seizure. This is also highly limited; for example, an officer could not demand a blood test of a driver believed to be operating a cellphone in violation of the law.

So, why did things get so testy that the police made up justifications before determining if those justifications existed?

S then tells S1 that he believed C was going to make a complaint about him when they came down to get his business card.

Ah.

Now, go back and pay attention as to who said what - the officer in question knew probable cause didn't exist.

Therefore, knowingly or not, he lied about exigent circumstance as a justification for search/seizure. Without probable cause, no warrant shall be issued. Without probable cause, exigent circumstance utterly evaporates.

Again, without probable cause, there is no reasonable need for search/seizure - the end.

He tried to get the hospital to circumvent the patient's 4th Amendment protections by lying about the justification, along with unlawful threats of arrest and eventual use of force in arresting the nurse that refused to violate said rights.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
fox13now.com... guess the truck driver is still in critical condition,i am unsure if he has woken up or if he is still in a medically induced coma .he has burns over 46% of his body and a 22% chance of survival

www.deseretnews.com...

Terrible! And this is the person who ahole Detective Payne wanted to barge in on and take blood from even though he was told to drop it. Needs to be fired, along with his superior, and the wussy cop there with him who just let it all happen. And Xcatheter, before you come in and repeat the BS you've been spouting over and over for 64 pages: if you actually ARE a cop, you shouldn't be. Your defense of this cop with insecurity issues so bad he can't take no, plus the attitude you display that cops are free to interpret the law however they wish, proves you utterly and totally unfit for any position of authority. Ever.

The thin blue line is not going away anytime soon.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
fox13now.com... guess the truck driver is still in critical condition,i am unsure if he has woken up or if he is still in a medically induced coma .he has burns over 46% of his body and a 22% chance of survival

www.deseretnews.com...

Terrible! And this is the person who ahole Detective Payne wanted to barge in on and take blood from even though he was told to drop it. Needs to be fired, along with his superior, and the wussy cop there with him who just let it all happen. And Xcatheter, before you come in and repeat the BS you've been spouting over and over for 64 pages: if you actually ARE a cop, you shouldn't be. Your defense of this cop with insecurity issues so bad he can't take no, plus the attitude you display that cops are free to interpret the law however they wish, proves you utterly and totally unfit for any position of authority. Ever.

The thin blue line is not going away anytime soon.

a reply to: Greven

Thanks for posting this, G. It's so awful on many different counts. Do you think that he was pushing for the blood draw because he believed she was going to file a complaint on him? That sounds ridiculous at first, but then if you consider his behavior, and his past problems (sexual harassment!) with women, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that he just could NOT, in his little mind, leave without getting what he demanded. He couldn't allow to be told "no." And with the way he flipped the hell out and started SWATTING at her, chanting "We're done" instead of "you're under arrest," it makes sense.

What about his boss though, who told him to get the blood, and who then showed up at the scene and disgustingly squatted there and explained to the nurse that this was all her fault?

Clearly his superior is of the same corrupt spirit as Det. Payne. But was he also just peeved that he was told no? Was it a penis size demonstration for him too?

Or was there something else these cops needed, that we don't know about? Early in this thread, it was floated a theory that they needed the injured party to have something in his system so that they could put blame on him and take blame off of themselves for the car-chase-gone-wrong; either for legal reasons or for insurance matters.

What about this? I am still curious about it. I think it needs to be looked at.

No matter what, the whole thing is scary as hell for citizens. Police hold a lot of power over U.S. citizens, and though of COURSE there are many good and honest ones, I fear that there are more bad apples than we are admitting. I think that the profession itself, with the power that is given to officers, draws people with control issues and power issues, and so there must be a good percentage of guys who should NEVER have a badge.

I mean, look at what one poster on this thread, who claims to be a cop, posted early on...he said that if the arrest was unlawful, it doesn't matter because that would be found out in court later, so, no biggie. How SCARY is that thought process?? Clearly he isn't the only cop who holds that view- Det. Payne thinks so as well. Scary.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Yes, SOMETHING fishy had to be going on for any of this to happen. Why were they so determined to get blood? If they were trying to get it from the driver who causedthe accident it would still be the wrong way to go about it, but it would be a bit more understandable. But this dude was toodling along minding his own business and BAM! got hit head-on...and they want his blood bad enough to risk this kind of negative publicity? Something really, really stinks.

originally posted by: Greven
Explain how the nurse has obstructed, given that the definition you've quoted is:

An actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constitutes a criminal offense

The patient is not a suspect in any crime, so the nurse cannot be obstructing investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment.

The only other involved party is the dead suspect, which for obvious reasons none of those apply.

So tell us, who was the beneficiary of her obstruction?

Notice it states investigation and not suspect. The semi driver was intentionally rammed by the suspect. As I stated before that is actually an assault. The semi driver was the victim and as such law enforcement is doing an investigation.

So yes, both statutes apply.

originally posted by: Greven
Now you suddenly argue that the blood draw isn't relevant, after going on and on about exigent circumstance. You are incapable of answering the fundamental question behind even invoking exigent circumstance: whether there was probable cause to investigate the patient. Your repeated inability to provide this has made this a gigantic waste of time.

No -
* - I said the blood draw was not relevant to the 2 charges I was talking about.
* - I said exigent circumstances are up to the officer and not medical staff.

Your repeated inability to read and understand my posts, in addition to not being able to follow a conversation, is a gigantic waste of time.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I was asking about the patients status at the time the detective was present.

You are right you dont forfeit your rights. However as a victim no rights were in danger of being violated and they usually cooperate with law enforcement investigations.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: diggindirt
Let me ask you this one more time---it's been asked over and over and yet you avoid answering---

Actually I have answered it. You and some others apparently refused to read or you didnt understand it.
Why didnt the nurse tell the detective when he first made contact they already took blood? A question asked that you guys have refused to answer.

This has been answered repeatedly: nobody asked.

It's generally evident to most reasonable people that hospitals are going to do blood work on people who are admitted with major trauma. Why didn't he ask?

He was present for a blood draw. She should have informed him the medical staff completed one. Secondly the Lt. never asked her if medical obtained a blood sample. The nurse was all to willing to disclose that fact to the Lt. after she was taken into custody.

a reply to: Greven

Except for the fact we were discussing the nurses reaction to being taken into custody, which has nothing to do with the scotus ruling.

a reply to: MrRCflying

No the investigations are not complete. The IA investigation / CPRB investigation is complete however that solely deals with any possible violations of departmental policy only.

The Unified police district is conducting a criminal investigation, which has not been completed.
The FBI is conducting a 1983 investigation, which has not been completed.

so no, I am not wrong.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: MrRCflying


Thanks for that post . I guarantee that xcath will still argue he was right lol

You would be correct since, contrary to the info in his post, the investigations are NOT complete. As i stated many times now we need all investigations to be complete for a better understanding since I am positive there is info that the media doesnt have.

a reply to: dreamingawake

I would strongly discourage anyone from even responding to xcath. Please don’t feed his delusion anymore. The investigation is out he has now been proven wrong on all counts not just by us but by the investigators as well and has zero valid arguments so his posts honestly don’t warrant a reply so please just ignore him so he will go away. Just my opinion on how to deal with a person clearly detached from reality.

originally posted by: norhoc
WOW! everything xcath argued is shot down in this , lol

Not even close

originally posted by: norhoc
-- NO implied consent- Wrong Xcath

My argument on implied consent is it is the officers responsibility to determine and NOT medical staff.

originally posted by: norhoc
--Officer should have known policy- wrong again xcath

The officers did know policy. Since you apparently ignored the facts the PD policy only changed after this incident occurred.

originally posted by: norhoc
-- She accurately stated that the policy she showed him had been agreed to between the department and hospital- Wrong again xcath

No - she lied. The PD policy was not the same as the Hospitals policy when this occurred. We know this because the Mayor and Police Chief stated it. Its why their policy was changed after the fact.

originally posted by: norhoc
-- interfering is a misdemeanor punishable by a citation NOT ARREST- and she didn't even interfere

She did obstruct, which is why she was taken int custody. She did resist by try to get away from the detective when he went to take her into custody.

originally posted by: norhoc
-- "other than screaming and yelling, she did not fight officer so no resisting arrest- wrong again xcath

Read the statute I posted.

Everything you posted here wrong. Next time read the posts before making a false claim.