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

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: MrRCflying


It also said 'she accurately stated the agreement was active and current between the PD and Hospital ' unlike xcath's assertion she was lying about that. I already know xcath will say this is just the PCRB this is not the police investigation and he will wait for the police investigation.

the Mayor and Chief say otherwise..

So who is lying now -

You or the Police Chief and the Mayor?

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Commercial truck drivers who are involved in an accident where damage occurs and someone is transported from the
scene due to injuries are required to take tests to check for alcohol as well as drugs. Drug testing requires blood.

The portion you cited is only for alcohol.

There is a 8 hour window for the driver to take a breath test.
There is a 36 hour window for the driver to take a blood test.

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

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

I'm surprised the board doesn't also note that her limited evasion takes place as he says, "we're done" and aggressively tries to manhandle her [I] before [/I] notifying her she's being placed under arrest.
She can't be legally "resisting arrest" if she has no idea she's been placed under arrest. It'd be like getting in a high speed chase and not using your lights. You might nail them for speed, reckless, not using an indicator, etc but you're never going to get the county attorney onboard for flight or evasion if you didn't signal for them to stop.

These guys were both incredibly poorly trained or dumb as posts.

Yes - she can.

Read the statutes that were posted.

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.

Please get my screen name right. Using other names only makes you lo childish.

Secondly - Considering the nurse denied the detective access to the patient and didnt bother to disclose required information to the detective how is the detective suppose to know the condition of the patient?

Please point out where i defended the detective. I have stated time and again he should have handled it differently. My position also lays part of the blame on the nurse for also failing to communicate with the detective. It wasnt until she was arrested that she decided to disclose critical information.

Are you guys that incapable of reading posts and actually understanding them?

originally posted by: KansasGirl

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?

Not at all...

What part of me stating the detective should have handled this differently are you not understanding?

Secondly maybe we should let the investigations conclude first ya think?

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.

It has nothing to do with the thin blue line and everything to do with getting all the facts and understanding whats in play.

If you and some others could check your blind hatred of law enforcement you might understand that.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Utah Highway Patrol were within policy for the pursuit. There is no law enforcement liability with regards to the accident caused by the fleeing suspect.

You guys accuse me of bias and yet fail to recognize your own bias towards law enforcement.

classy.

originally posted by: norhoc
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.

If you would stop posting false information, like for instance the 2 policies issue, I wouldn need to respond as much as I do, let alone having to repeat information you ignore.

What gets me though is how you guys are dead set against an opinion that differs from your own.

Once again your bias is showing.

I want all of the facts.
You want a lynching.

and no, i wont be going away.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Did you even read the PCRB? It disputes EVERYTHING you have claimed, and continue.

Ahh... Why bother. I am convinced you are just a bad egg. I do expect apologies and admitting you were wrong, once all the other investigations come to the same conclusion. Close your eyes, and plug your ears all you want. The PCRB and Internal Affairs investigation have been completed. Both show a list of failures on the part of the two officers. The PCRB in no uncertain terms show they were outside the law. Read them and enlighten yourself. This is my one and only response, no sense in playing games when 2 investigations prove you wrong.

localtvkstu.files.wordpress.com...

www.slcdocs.com...

a reply to: MrRCflying

Yes i read it and I stated the criminal investigation and the 83 investigation arent complete. Also I stated the detective should have handled it differently than he did since the start of this thread.

So an IA investigation noted 3 possible violations. The Detective still has to meet with the Chief to review those reports and for the Detective to give his side of the story. In the end the worst that can come from a policy violation is termination. You guys are calling for blood and in order to get that you have to let the 2 other investigations complete.

What parts tripped you up?


What would i be apologizing for?
I didnt support the detective and his actions.
I stated the nurse has some responsibility in all of this.
I pointed out legal aspects and explained my thought process.

so?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I count 6, not 3 in the IA. As I also said, I expect an apology, and admitting you were wrong, once the other investigations are complete and come to the same conclusion.

I will no longer reply, I am not going to play games with you.

originally posted by: MrRCflying
a reply to: Xcathdra

I count 6, not 3 in the IA. As I also said, I expect an apology, and admitting you were wrong, once the other investigations are complete and come to the same conclusion.

I will no longer reply, I am not going to play games with you.

what am i apologizing for? I was not wrong and had you read my posts you would see that.

You wont be getting an apology.

and after looking for the info its apparently 5 policy violations and not 6 or 3.

as for replying thats fine. I will still respond to posts and im not leaving the thread so deal with it.

a reply to: MrRCflying

All you need to know is that policies are in place to protect the department against liabilities. Like these two officers -- and they clearly violated several policies.
More to the point the Garrity ruling protects you against self-incrimination, not embarrassment or policy infractions. There would be nothing redacted if the testimony of the officers did not tend to incriminate themselves. The root word there is crime, as in violation of the law, not policy violations or remarks that tended to embarrass themselves.
That doesn't mean they are guilty of a crime, necessarily, but that there testimony would at least appear to support that conclusion in the eyes of the department's legal team, and hence cannot be used as evidence of a crime because the statements were compelled by the department.
I'm glad the officers are still protected by the Constitutional rights they denied the victim and nurse, and there's still plenty in the narrative from sources other than their own direct testimony that would lead me to believe a criminal investigation is both underway and warranted.
That will all be argued in a court if deemed proper, and they'll be defended by someone smarter than loud mouths on the forum.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Innocent until proven guilty is a good thing. On one level public opinion can be completely off the mark on some things. In this case however it is clear that both of these bone heads were off the mark. Both legally and professionally. Enough has been brought out that shows what they were trying was not within the law, but just them throwing the badge around. The PCRB basically says this in at least 2 places. They should be afforded due process for sure, but just watching the video, and balancing it off the law, people can see how big of bloated heads they had with the "Obey my law".

So I am glad to see that the PCRB clearly states they were acting they had "clear that the lack of understanding of the law, confusion over when "Implied Consent" applies".

How anyone can still support them at this point, is beyond my grasp. Still innocent till proven guilty, but with evidence like the video laid against the law, and now the damning PCRB, it is not looking good for them.

a reply to: MrRCflying

Yep. Hopefully, they are charged. I'm just saying you can ignore all the noise from a certain poster.

More excerpts to support your conclusion:

when in fact, the situation shows Complaintant (Nurse) was attempting to stop Suspect (Detective) from breaking the law.
...
(Regarding mitigating factors)
So if Suspect (Detective) knew the law and ignored it, the issue becomes moot. If Suspect did not know the law/policy about blood draws, his perception of Complaintant "interfering" becomes somewhat understandable, yet still objectively wrong.

www.sltrib.com... -arrest/

U. police Chief Dale Brophy declined an interview request Thursday. A university spokesman instead sent The Salt Lake Tribune a public relations video interview with Brophy addressing the situation. The interview was conducted several days after Aug. 31, when Wubbels’ attorney released body camera footage of the arrest. “We could have stepped up and been a champion and advocate for Alex at that time,” Brophy says in the video. “Having seen the video and firsthand what she went through, and what she tried to do to de-escalate and solve the problem, I think that somebody else — [university] security and/or police — could have stepped up and taken that role from her and been the advocate for her like they should’ve been.” Payne arrested Wubbels, manhandling her and putting her in a hot patrol car, after she refused to allow him to obtain a blood sample from an unconscious patient injured in a fiery crash in Cache County, citing hospital policy. The full encounter was captured on police body cameras and hospital security footage. It sparked national outrage after it was released and spurred multiple investigations — including an ongoing criminal probe.

so now the university police is saying it should have done more to diffuse the situation

www.ems1.com... EMS1's take on the matter with a slew of articles at link

www.ems1.com...

www.ems1.com...

Emergency responders behaving badly Detective Jeff Payne, a Utah police officer and paramedic since 1983, became a viral news sensation when he handcuffed a nurse who refused to let him draw blood on an unconscious patient. Payne has since been fired from Gold Cross Ambulance and is on paid leave as the Salt Lake City Police Department investigates the incident. As I watched the video of Payne inside the hospital, handcuffing nurse Alex Wubbels, I was struck by how many people – hospital staff, hospital security officers and police officers – witnessed the escalating incident. Much like my encounter with the out-of-control soccer coach, this incident was playing out in the midst of a crowd of somber, sober and sane adults. You have likely been to a scene where a colleague sets a course of action that is rapidly building toward confrontation. This colleague, like Payne, usually rationalizes course of action as the only possible solution. The desired actions the patient, suspect or other responders are supposed to take are stated repeatedly and often with increasing volume and hostility. If uninterrupted, a chain reaction of events – almost always captured on multiple smartphone videos – leads to unnecessary verbal and physical confrontation.

some advice from EMS personell on how to diffuse a situation and ideally keep it from going viral like it did for Det payne

www.ems1.com... pod cast (28 minutes long) on when an EMS can disobey an order ,and covers a vareity of issues such as public perception the hurricanses and other recent events that have faced ems personell

a reply to: RadioRobert

Garrity applies because law enforcement uses a military style command structure where we can be ordered to answer a question. What arises from garrity cannot be used in a criminal proceeding. IA investigations are reverse in terms of guilt, where an officer who decides not to cooperate with an IA investigation can be considered guilty.

Garrity protects the officers to an extent in that regard.

a reply to: RadioRobert

and yet it doesnt change the facts of the case or laws in question.

and certain posters ignoring that and relying on CPRB without proper understanding of their role are going to continue to be confused when something happens they dont understand.

Like for instance the fact PD policy was different than hospital policy (contrary to the noise from another poster).

Police Civilian Review Baord - salt Lake City Utah Homae Page

Who makes the final decision on any complaint and any resultant discipline or decision not to discipline?
The Police Chief has complete and final authority over all disciplinary decisions, but is required to take the recommendations of the Police Civilian Review Board into consideration.

CPRB Investigative policies ***PDF LINK***

Since a few of you like to cite from policeone -

source

The impact on patrol officers is for them to review their state’s driving while intoxicated and implied consent laws. Birchfield will impact only those states wherein a refusal of a blood draw is a criminal offense. However, it remains under the McNeely decision that a blood draw in connection with a DWI arrest must be conducted pursuant to a search warrant, unless exigent circumstances exist other than natural dissipation of blood alcohol content in the body.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.

You should re-read this thread if you think I'm not following the conversation.

Your repeated demeaning remarks and insults against fellow ATS members is rather disappointing. I have not done such towards you. This is not the Mud Pit, either. Maybe you would gain some introspection as to the behavior you are exhibiting in this thread. If you deny this, I will quote them all. Escalation will follow.

Now that we have this cleared up, you need to read that statute more carefully:

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 statute does not simply say hinder/prevent/delay an investigation. Let me break this down for you:

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

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

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

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

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

The one you selected to argue was 'investigation' which is really 'investigation of any person.' There was no investigation of the patient. There is no reasonable need for blood from the patient for an assault investigation. The agency that had initially requested the unlawful seizure of evidence in the first place withdrew the request during the situation. There was no probable cause, as stated by the officer in question, which means no warrant and no exigent circumstance. In light of all these facts, you still want to argue that

Exigent circumstances require probable cause - full stop. It is an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment, not an exception to the requirement of probable cause. Therefore, the potential for exigent circumstance ceased the moment he knew probable cause did not exist. Additionally, there was plenty of time to obtain a warrant (which wouldn't have happened given no probable cause), which further destroys the idea that exigent circumstance could conceivably apply. You cannot continue to argue in good faith that exigent circumstance could apply.

The blood draw is obviously relevant, as that was principal to why the officer arrested the nurse - the 'obstruction' of the blood draw. Given that the blood draw was unlawful, obstruction is not applicable. For obstruction to be applicable, the blood draw must be lawful. These are intrinsically linked - you cannot obstruct an unlawful investigation.

Charges against the nurse were dropped. She was released immediately. The officer involved expressed concern that he may have screwed up. Every fact about the case thus far is contrary to your arguments.