EXPLANATION: Utah Nurse Arrested For Blocking Blood Draw

Video shows a Salt Lake City detective arresting Nurse Alex Wubbels.

Video shows a Salt Lake City detective arresting Nurse Alex Wubbels.

Salt Lake Nurse Arrested Over Blood Draw

Salt Lake City, UT – A viral video shows a Salt Lake City detective arresting a nurse for blocking a blood draw, leaving people looking for answers.

The police department is conducting an internal investigation and cannot release any conclusions until the investigation in complete.

Below, I’m going to offer a detailed explanation of the facts, as we know them, but there may be additional details which we aren’t aware of. This is an opinion based on limited information and the final investigation may yield a different conclusion.

The Incident

The incident started on July 26 at around 2 PM when a Utah Highway Patrol officer was in pursuit of a pickup truck on ST 89/91 near Sardine Canyon, according to Salt Lake Tribune.

While fleeing, the pickup truck crashed into a semi-truck head-on, causing an explosion.

The pickup driver, Marcos Torres, 26, died on scene. The semi driver, William Gray, exited his vehicle while he was on fire. He was transported to University Hospital in Salt Lake City for treatment.

You can see video of the crash below:

The Blood Draw

Any time there is a collision resulting in death, it’s normal to determine if anybody involved was impaired. Because Gray was transported to Salt Lake City, Logan police officers on scene asked Salt Lake police to obtain a blood sample from Gray.

Salt Lake Detective Jeff Payne, a trained phlebotomist, responded to obtain a blood sample from Gray, but Gray was unconscious.

Nurse Alex Wubbels told Payne that an agreement between the hospital and police department does not allow for a warrantless blood draw without patient consent or without the patient being under arrest.

Detective Payne consulted with the watch commander, Lt. James Tracy, who told him to arrest Wubbels for interfering with the investigation if she didn’t allow him to draw blood from Gray.

Wubbels went over the policy with the detective again, and Detective Payne arrested Wubbels. Bodycam video of the incident shows the arrest.

Wubbels was later released without charges and the police department has launched an internal investigation.

You can see the video of the arrest below:

The Lawfulness Of The Search

Breath samples and blood draws are technically a “search” and governed under 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  A person is being searched when their blood is drawn, and then their blood is being searched to obtain evidence of impairment.

In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Birchfield v North Dakota) that while breath samples were minimally invasive and did not require a warrant, blood samples did require a warrant.

Prior to the case in 2016, there was no clear guidance to law enforcement which said that blood draws required warrants, and warrantless blood draws could have been legal under a search incident to arrest or implied consent laws.

So a warrant is always required, right? Not exactly. There are multiple exceptions to any search warrant requirement. The two exceptions for blood draws are consent and exigent circumstances.

Gray was incapable of giving his consent, so that was off of the table.

That leaves exigency as the only possible exception in this case. The most common argument for exigency in a blood draw is that the drugs or alcohol, in a person’s blood, may significantly dissipate in the time that it takes to get a warrant.

Case law on this is mixed around the country, with some jurisdictions allowing for it and others prohibiting it. The U.S. Supreme court specifically left the exigency argument open in Birchfield v North Dakota.

Does that mean that Detective Payne could have completed a legal blood draw without a warrant. Possibly, except for one thing; Gray wasn’t under arrest, which suggests that there was no probable cause.

If there were no reasonable grounds to believe that Gray may have been impaired by drugs or alcohol, then a warrantless blood draw would have required consent.

Based on established case law, it appears unlikely that the search of Gray’s person would have been lawful.

The Arrest Of Nurse Wubbels

In the state of Utah, it’s not a crime to interfere with an unlawful search. If the search was lawful, then we must consider if there was probable case that Nurse Wubbels knowingly interfered with the blood draw.

The detective, a trained phlebotomist, could have presumably ignored her and tried to extract the blood. At that point if somebody physically obstructed him, then there would be a potential case for interference with a public servant. That doesn’t appear to be what happened.

Nurse Wubbels informed the detective of hospital policy which is no more than a failure to cooperate. I’m not familiar if there is specific Utah case law in which failure to cooperate constitutes interference, but it seems unlikely.

Based on the criminal violation, and the lawfulness of the search, it is fairly certain that the arrest was unlawful.

Lt. Tracy’s Orders

Watch commander, Lt. Tracy, reportedly ordered the blood draw and arrest of nurse Wubbels. The question arises if Detective Payne was obligated to follow the orders of his lieutenant.

The answer is that if the Detective believed that the order was unlawful, then he should have refused the order.

However, it is unlikely that Detective Payne believed that the order was unlawful.

If he had not been given an order to arrest Wubbels, Detective Payne would have had the discretion to leave her, and likely would have.

If Detective Payne believed that the order to arrest he was lawful, then he was obligated to follow the orders of his lieutenant.

Why Did This Happen?

We are getting deeper into the realm of speculation but it would be hard to infer any malicious intent from this incident.

The most likely cause of this incident is that Detective Payne believed that his actions were lawful, which would happen if he failed to receive training on case law updates. The Lieutenant then forced the incident to escalate by ordering an arrest of a nurse.

Police officers are responsible for being aware of well-established case law, and if it’s determined that the arrest was unlawful, both Detective Payne, Lt. Tracy, and the department would be liable.

Wubbels’ attorney has been in contact with the police department about training for officers, and officers have already begun to receive undated training. No lawsuit has been filed at this time.

The Salt Lake City Police Department has issued an apology over the incident.

  • Mark J

    And therein lies the problem, Case law. If we still were governed by constitutional law there would be no question that the LEO was out of line doing what he did.

  • Vorenus

    Great job…
    You just made this nurse a cool million.

    I side with the police when they deserve it but she was NOT blocking them as your biased title suggest.

    The police required a warrant or permission from the patient.

    You can’t just take blood because your a police officer the same as you can’t just enter peoples homes without a warrant. Probable cause or the officer knows that a crime has taken place through sight, hearing or smell.

    You can bang on the door all day long and no one has to let you in and usually do so so they aren’t harassed for eternity.

    The patient was unconscious, he could not give consent. There was no proof of a crime and the only reasonable conclusion was that the guy fell asleep at the wheel.

    So without evidence the officer was not justified and has no authority to steal body fluids.

    How about follow the law instead of over reaching and then be backed up by a judge.
    Just get the damn warrant next time.

    I watched a video where a Sheriffs Deputy just reached into a lawyers bag and took private documents right in front of a judge.

    YOU ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

    • A Chicken Farmer

      When you sign documentation at the DMV to obtain a license, you sign an implied consent clause. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Things are not as cut and dry when a death is involved, and it becomes even more tricky when commercial vehicles are involved. Exigent circumstances exist when the destruction of evidence is imminent, and the time to obtain a warrant would be long enough to facilitate that destruction. Due to the victim being unconscious, the typical consent couldn’t be given, also lending to the exigent circumstance, all of which is readily articulable. What it boils down to is a nurse doing what she thought was right, and the detective doing the same. The one shining factor that leads one to the conclusion that there was no ill intent is that blood would be drawn from that person and tested at the hospital lab anyway.. and it would be just as easy to subpoena those records as it was to draw the blood himself. But of course, we must all keep in mind that cops are actually out with the sole purpose of finding ways to violate your rights.. its true.. I saw it on a youtube video

      • Big10bill

        That implied consent does not mean that the nurse can be forced to take blood, she is not cooperating but she is not impeding -so SHE is not the one to arrest. NOT arrest worthy. Also, there is a difference between DMV’s “implied consent” where you sign into just to get your license, and giving implied consent by your actual actions – this driver was the one who was hit, not the one fleeing police. No probable cause for this exigent circumstance to hold up as an argument.

        • A Chicken Farmer

          Right, I purposely stayed away from her arrest in my comment, I don’t have an opinion on that. As it was reported that the cop was a trained phlebotomist if I remember correctly, I don’t know why he didn’t take the sample himself, but its not my place to armchair quarterback someone. Anyway, I don’t quite follow what you meant with your implied consent comment.. It is what it is, implied consent means that you are agreeing to consent to the search that is asked of you by a law enforcement officer.. which is why there are specific charges/consequences for the denial of the “search”, as it is best described. Vehicle and traffic laws are enforced by cops, but under the purview of the commissioner of motor vehicles, who also is the end all, be all for anyone having a license to operate on the roads. And you are very right, the driver of the semi is the one that was hit, however, how do you know there was no probable cause for the search? What about possible evidence recovered at the scene? It’s probably worth mentioning that he WILL be drug tested by his employer also.. I believe within 8 hours of the accident.. its federal regulation. In the end, we’ll all watch and see what happens with it I guess.. Will likely end up in additional case law to bolster one side of this coin!

          • TD1

            Implied consent only applies to a lawful arrest. The detective already said, more than once, that the driver was NOT under arrest. Thus, no probable cause.
            He doesn’t have to submit to the drug test by his employer either. Of course, the employer is free to not employ the guy anymore.

          • A Chicken Farmer

            Probable cause to search, and probable cause to arrest are two different things entirely. An officer can have probable cause to search a vehicle, yet find nothing, resulting in no arrest. Right, the individual does not have to submit to a test from his employer, but ya know what they will say? Okay, well then you can go ahead and find a new line of work, because you are no longer eligible for this CDL. An individual doesn’t have to submit to a breath test for a law enforcement officer either, but freedom of choice does not equal freedom of consequence. It’s the way of the world.. every action has an equal and opposite, right?

          • Jettboy

            Freedom of choice, legally, means freedom from consequence or there wouldn’t be such a thing as freedom of choice. If I say, “you are free to yell at me and call me all kinds of names for one hour, but I am still going to shoot you,” that isn’t freedom of speech. If you argue that people are free to do what they want, but will still be punished then the term “freedom” is a scam. I do believe in consequences for our words and actions, but I also believe too many consequences are used as an excuse to punish rather than protect.

          • Micheal

            When I had a commercial license, my boss had me sign a consent form as a condition of employment. An accident, ticket, or random selection would trigger a blood test.

          • Navydoc201

            DOT requirement.

          • Gary Pagliaro

            That is only CDL, we had many of those cases. Completely different

          • Todd Murphy

            Implied consent is the state asserting the fact that unless you agree to testing in the case of an accident you won’t be given a drivers license. It has absolutely nothing g to do with custodial or noncustodial arrest.

            It simply asserts that driving is a privledge and if you do so you will do it while being subject to testing. In most states that have this clause in the license process there is a penalty for refusing – usually license suspension.

            Folks should read what they sign.

          • Todd Murphy

            BTW your definition of probable cause is slightly off, PC occurs when an officer has articulatible facts which indicate a crime has been committed by a person, you do not have to be under arrest to be the subject of probable cause.

            There are also times when you can be detained under “reasonable articulable suspicion “. This is when a cop thinks you may be up to something but doesn’t know xactly what that something is, Like finding you standing behind a store at 3am.

          • Tonya Weirum Henson

            Except that the detention must be for a short amount of time, while you ask questions, and unless you have EVIDENCE that something illegal has happened while I’ve been standing there you have to let me go. I can stand behind a store at 3 am all I want, it’s not illegal. I may have been walking home the quickest route after a night at a friends house. My husband, an LEO, says the quickest way to make a quick buck is put on a hoody and hang out somewhere then let some overconfident, over-aggressive youngster cop detain or arrest me for no reason. Todd, it’s really easy for LEO to make assumptions that everyone is guilty and your always right, but perhaps you need to do some studying in regards to case law and the difference between good cops and bad cops

          • Todd Murphy

            Reasonable articulable suspicion has no time limit. If the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion he can detain you as long as required to confirm or deny probable cause that you actually have or are committing a crime.

            It is not reasonable for normal acting citizens walking home from work at 3am to do so behind a store. Most walk down the steet or sidewalk. what you are wearing can add to the suspicion – like if you had on gloves and dark clothing with your face covered but is really irrelevant to the question of why you are behind the store.

            Your husband is correct you will earn a quick buck if you are standing in a legal location at where foot traffic is the norm, but I’ll leave it to you to convince a judge or court that I’ve violated your rights by stopping and asking why you are behind a store at 3am

          • Tonya Weirum Henson

            Stopping me to ask a few questions is not the problem. Detaining me in the absence of any probable cause is a problem. If you have no evidence that any crime has been committed and you detain me longer than it takes to have me tell you I’m taking a shortcut to my apartment your in error. More and more often departments are having to pay out large sums awarded to people who were “detained” cuffed and in the back of police cars when there was no evidence of a crime or any wrongdoing

          • Tonya Weirum Henson

            Implied consent has to have probable cause, which wasn’t there. The patient was the victim, and there was no indication at all that he was impaired, hence to implied consent.

      • Anton Zuykov

        The Supreme Court reaffirmed that drawing blood without a warrant – illegal. Period. That makes that paper that you sign – void. That paper only tell you that if you do not consent, then your privilege to drive is withdrawn. But a phony paper does not allow for a violation of personal rights.

        • A Chicken Farmer

          Actually no, they did not.. its Missouri V Mcneely.. And that case pertained to a straight up DUI arrest.. the ongoing metabolizing of alcohol did not represent exigent circumstances that would negate the need for a warrant. There is still an exigent circumstance clause.. it has just not been defined, as you cannot come up with every conceivable situation that may occur in the law enforcement line of work. It’s not “that paper that you sign” that you are worried about, it’s the proof that you’ve read and understand what the words on the paper represent and signed your name as acknowledgement to that. If it was “phony” and “void”, then you would no longer need to sign it, correct? Read it again, with this situation in mind, and you may find a little more clarity in it.. although many times this stuff is in lawyer speak! It’s all about articulation and verbiage.. Out of this nasty situation we can expect to see a little more clarification on that particular case.. the courts will rule that whatever they felt was exigent is either sufficient, or is not.

          • linnilu

            Thank you for looking at this rationally instead of just a “the cop is wrong!” mentality. We will hear the entire story when they are done investigating it. Maybe the cops were right, maybe they were wrong, but it’s best to know the details before castigating them yet again.

          • Terry in GA

            Implied consent is similar to Miranda — both are read to the driver, then he agrees to breath or blood testing, or to speak without the presence of a lawyer. In either case, the patient was not given his rights regarding the testing or his right to an attorney, therefore, get a warrant.

          • A Chicken Farmer

            you can’t advise anyone of their rights while they are otherwise incapacitated.. because they cannot affirm that they “understand these rights as I have explained them to you”.. thus.. adding to the totality of circumstances surrounding the exigent circumstances argument.. And no, it is not similar to Miranda.. at all.. You get a license, which is a privilege, and you sign saying that you will effectively cooperate with the investigation of law enforcement officers in their investigations into impaired driving. Verbiage is a little different state to state, but it is all effectively the same. A warrant is more often than not required to take blood.. however, having an unconscious driver, who was operating what has been classified as a safety sensitive vehicle by the federal government, and was involved in a fatal collision.. I mean, what is the argument here?? His blood shouldn’t have been drawn? It was drawn by the hospital, I am 99% certain, and because he was in a fatal accident, its also going to be drawn by his employer within 8 hours of notification of the accident.. its federal regulation.. so is the argument that the cop shouldn’t have taken the blood? If so, that’s not any of our call, its up to the judge. Is the argument that no one should have drawn his blood? Well that is standard practice for the hospital and also mandated by the federal government to his employer. Is the argument that you don’t think he should have anything done because he was the one that was hit? Well I can tell you that truck drivers know that its gonna happen anyway, and agree to that when they get a CDL.. I mean I get that you may think that the taking of anything, from anyone, by law enforcement requires a warrant, but it does not.. there’s a reason law is considered a profession.. I don’t know what you do, but for the sake of argument, I think you can understand what I’m getting at when I say that you wouldn’t tell a welder how to go about welding, would you?

          • TD1

            What reasonable suspicion was there for an investigation into impaired driving?

          • A Chicken Farmer

            Wasn’t there, so I don’t know, and neither do you.. which is the entire point.. a more appropriate question is what makes you think a short video of a nurse being arrested gives you all the pertinent facts and background you need on the case to pass judgement?

          • Jettboy

            You do know what HIPPAA is don’t you? The Nurse by law cannot allow a patient’s personal information be given to anyone, even a police officer. She and her staff would have been in even more legal hot water than facing an arrogant cop.

          • David Maggard

            Nope, but a 20min vid of the incident AND the video of the chase leading to the accident makes the picture pretty clear.

          • Tonya Weirum Henson

            Perhaps you should watch the whole 19 minute video. Also, several times in that 19 minute video the cop stated that he didn’t have probable cause and couldn’t get a warrant. He dug his own hole….

          • James Michael

            NONE….

          • David Maggard

            There was a reasonable suspicion the driver or his family might sue so they wanted a blood test, if it found anything not from hospital they could use that to avoid liability.

          • Joe Westmount

            No clarification is necessary. If you are PD, take a class or ask your watch commander for information.

            Simply when you show up at a hospital you cannot enter. You cannot snoop around and look for a patient.
            No one will tell you who , what , when or where. If you go into patients rooms you are trespassing unless you have a warrant for a specific item, or if the patient is under arrest.
            The exigence excuse you give is just BS. They were not asserting that , and its clear from the video.

      • Bill H

        with all that being said, the officer coud have simply placed him under arrest and that would have simplified everything.

        • Tom Peterson

          And may I ask Mr Genius, just what charges the officer was going to arrest an individual, who happened to be minding his own business when another vehicle that was driven by a person trying to flee the police crash into him. He was unconscious so he could not give consent. Why didn’t the officer just shoot the person to simplify everything. Just saying make a stupid comment and expect the same.

          • A Chicken Farmer

            Ha, Im no genius, Im just a chicken farmer.. duhh.. but yes, you may ask actually. Here’s the deal, the situation appears to be just exactly what everyone seems to think. The cop got pissy, he may have abused his power, and so on and so forth. But explain to me why the cop would go through the hassle of obtaining blood from the truck driver for no apparent reason.. that process generates evidence, which generates paperwork and chain of custody, and special handling, and procedure and policy issues and inevitably more work for the cop whos already got hours of paperwork coming his way. Why do that to yourself if there was no good reason to do it at all? Do you think it’s a common thing for people to purposefully, yet for no good reason, generate more work for themselves. Why not get the real answer from the cop as to why he took the blood, and why he thought he was justified.. Once that question is answered, the conversation is pretty much over.

            Why did the chicken cross the road?

            Sorry.. chicken farmer humor…

          • BJR1961

            A high speed chase resulted in a death of the dude being chased. They were trying to pin it on the truck driver, so that their testosterone-laden love for high-speed chases would not be questioned. Abuse of power will be caught more and more often as our videos capture it. But it has been here all along. Just ask any black person.

          • A Chicken Farmer

            Pin what on the driver? The guy ran from the cops on his own accord.. they tried to get him to stop, he chose to drive in the path of a truck.. and somehow that’s the cops fault? No one forced him to flee the cops.. no one forced him to drive into the path of the truck.. Your previous comments seemed rather mild mannered and I enjoyed the back and forth.. but now your venturing into a realm that often devolves into useless name calling and pointless data generation.. have a good one, be safe.

          • Jettboy

            You don’t read very well do you Chicken Farmer? First off the person the cops wanted blood from was the Truck driver the Perp hit! The Perp died from the accident. BJR is saying, although I agree it is speculation, the police want to pin the accident on the truck driver as somehow responsible for the final crash. This way they can say a bad guy hit another bad guy, instead of admitting pursuing the Perp in a high speed chase put the public in danger.

          • David Maggard

            I think they were worried about the trucker or his family suing them so they were hoping to find something in his blood to mitigate it, even the drugs the hospital gave him could cloud the issue, but most judges aren’t gonna issue a warrant for “we think he might sue us”.

          • DaveTanner

            The entire collision was caught on (multiple) dash cams. Anyone that has access to those videos can see whether the now unconscious CDL driver was in any way at fault. From the short, very distant, video that was shown in this article, I can comfortably side with the trucker being 100% a victim. An arrest of the trucker wasnt made, his consent wasn’t obtained, a warrant wasn’t issued, and anyone that can find exigent circumstances in this man driving down the road doing his job, doesn’t need to be in a position of authority… PERIOD. As far as that goes, Officer Payne holds far less accountability in this massive misunderstanding than his superior officer does.

          • David Maggard

            I love the ppl commenting that “maybe they found beer cans”, “maybe someone reported seeing him drink”, etc. Their is an EASY solution if those were true, it starts with “war”, and ends with “ant”.

          • James Michael

            You sure are defensive of a sworn servant that just committed multiple felonies and treason? Why?

          • BJR1961

            No, Chicken Farmer, I am just an RN who has seen a lot of crap. But when I worked the floor, we were friends with our cops, and if we had to say no, they did what was legally necessary to meet the dictates of the law. You are just upset because I mentioned blacks. And I can tell you that my white teen-aged sons were treated better by police than my black friends’ teen sons. But the point of all this is that nobody ever tried to drag me out into the squad car for doing my job.

          • Tom Peterson

            Explain to you why a police officer would go through the hassle of obtaining blood from a truck driver for no apparent reason which generates paperwork, chain of custody, etc…etc… Being an ex-police officer as well as a paramedic (meaning I could draw blood) I can explain it. Stupidity. 1) If you saw the video of the car chase then you saw the car at the last moment cross the lanes and hit the eighteen wheeler head on. Anyone that saw the video knows that the person that was injured, was not the person running from the police and could not have in any way prevented the accident. 2) I saw the 20 minute video (Not the short verson) and appears that this person as will not disrespect the police force by calling him an officer of the law, was trying to flex his muscle. 3) Want to make a bet as to this guy being on the force next year???? To him this was no longer a case of me drawing blood and getting out of dodge, it was a case of someone with brains that informed him of the policy that was agreed to with the police department. Trust me, at this moment the PD is buying KY Jelly as they know that even with their APOLOGY for fking up will cost them big time in the near future. A) The nurse was not interfering but was refusing to perform their dirty work for them which they would claim in the end that this was the hospital not the police force that drew the blood. Cannot arrest someone for not agreeing to do what you tell them to do if it is an illegal order given. B) You used the McNeely case of 2013 to justify the actions but failed to note all the revisions that have been made since Judge Sotomayor gave the majority opinion on the matter. It is not open/closed. This individual was working by driving an 18 wheel truck and probably had a CDL so most likely would not be out driving and drinking. C) This person was wrong in his approach as well as arrest of this nurse. She will be highly compensated whether by trial or out of court settlement as they caused emotional trauma arresting her at her work for refusing to muddy her hands with a crooked police officer that gives others serving honorably a bad name.

        • He wasn’t a suspect.

          • A Chicken Farmer

            Wasn’t a suspect of what? The initial police chase? Correct.. but, does that mean he may not have been under the influence of something at that time? For the sake of the conversation, if he was drunk at the time of the accident, and they found a bunch of beer cans or beer bottles in his truck, is his crime forgiven because he was the one that was hit? Is that fair and unbiased enforcement?

          • TD1

            “but, does that mean he may not have been under the influence of something at that time?”

            Anyone COULD be under the influence of something when they drive. You can’t just take blood from them any time you feel like it. Implied consent doesn’t mean you can take blood from someone for running a red light.

          • A Chicken Farmer

            Your right, anyone could be under the influence at any time.. and no, you cant just take blood whenever you want. Because you obviously understand this, don’t you think a cop is going to understand this also? Someone who does this for a living and has gone through a school for this very thing? And with that being the case, wouldn’t it stand to reason that his decision to do so may be based one some other piece of evidence that we as the public are not privy to due to it being an ongoing investigation? Im not going to re-state the points Ive already made in the other posts on this one..

          • David Maggard

            No, they use this remarkable invention called a phone to call a judge and say there was a motor vehicle accident, resulting in death, and beer containers were found in the other vehicle, and the judge issues a warrant which would have avoided this whole incident. So either your ridiculous hypothetical is bogus or every cop involved is incompetent.

        • A Chicken Farmer

          Ha.. uh.. no.. you cant “simply” place anyone under arrest.. placing an individual under arrest without charges, as Tom mentioned, is the same as taking their blood, absent probable cause or exigent circumstances. When someone is placed under arrest, you are technically seizing them.. look up the 4th amendment and see what that says about seizing a person. That should lead you to the conclusion that a law enforcement officer has the legal authority to “suspend” your rights in certain circumstances. That’s a huge responsibility. If an officer acts outside the purview of his position, then all charges and evidence in the case is thrown out and cannot be used to prosecute.. fruit of the poisonous tree.

          • Not a fan of circle talkers

            Call me dumb but you just stated that exigent circumstances was the reason the cop “could have” wanted the blood draw. If that was the case he could had arrested him an made it so much easier than took the blood draw. Please do not justify excessive force also he used on the nurse. I don’t think anything she could had done before “the video” out side of slapping him to pay attention would have.

      • Frank

        One only has to watch the video from the cruiser to know Damn well that the truck driver was at no fault other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I’m sickened not only by the treatment of the nurse but the idea that the truck driver would be at fault.

        • A Chicken Farmer

          Again.. and again.. and again.. we don’t know what was present for evidence at the scene. If the truck driver was drunk, is he any less guilty because he happened to be hit by another criminal? Yeah, I do agree, wrong place, wrong time.. but a crime is a crime. And let me reiterate.. I don’t know or have any inclination that the truck driver was drunk or anything of the sort. That being said, nobody knows that he wasn’t, other than those on scene and at the hospital, nor do we know what other evidence is present. Everyones so quick to throw the cop under the bus, yet no one has all the facts. If the cop was in the wrong, he should be dealt with, but if he wasn’t, then what?

          • BJR1961

            Due process was explicitly written out. That was all that was necessary. The police needed to obtain a warrant. It should be just a phone call away — if it was really needed for a legal reason, that is…

          • A Chicken Farmer

            Yeah, as everyone keeps saying, they should have gotten a warrant.. UNLESS exigent circumstances existed outside the purview of the natural metabolization of alcohol were present. If the cop can prove that, he’s fine, if he cant.. he’s probably screwed.

            Let me put this one in perspective though.. cops get in a high speed chase with an individual who was clearly a criminal.. that guy gets in a head on collision with a truck, an 80’s movie-esque explosion occurs, and this guy is put in the hospital in critical. People are more outraged by the cop possibly taking blood from this guy, who was likely not doing anything wrong, than they are about the asshole who ran from the cops and plowed into him… some world we live in!

          • Mike

            I think people are more outraged that a Nurse, who was following the law, was arrested by a Cop who was not following the law. I don’t think more then 5-6 people give two craps about the criminal running from the cops.

          • Jettboy

            Not to mention all the HIPPAA regulations that would have been broken had the nurse given in to the cop’s demands. And the only reason no one is angry about the dead perp is because that is a red herring of the real issue of overzealous police officers.

          • David Maggard

            I am actually outraged that this guy was SEVERELY injured and the only rational theory I have heard for all this is that they were hoping to find something in his blood in case he sued, which means that they were more worried about their asses than this guys injuries or his rights. There was already blood drawn so any evidence in his blood was safe until they could obtain a warrant.

      • Andy Earnest

        You’re being too harsh. I would guestimate that only 20-30% of law enforcement types are out there with the sole purpose of finding ways to violate citizens rights. The bigger problem is the other 70-80% who feel obligated to look the other way and in some cases become complicit by giving false testimony even while under oath. In New York City they have charming terminology. Blue Wall of Silence and Testilie.

        • A Chicken Farmer

          Thanks for your informed guestimation, seems legit!

      • Joel Miller

        That’s a lot of words and it’s all bullshit. There was no imminent threat that dictated the officer from getting his shit together and taking a deep breath. Inexcusable.

        • A Chicken Farmer

          It is a lot of words, you are absolutely right.. because these situations that everyone wants to blow up about are more complex than a short video that shows one, siloed view of the situation. What happened before, what happened after, what was found at the scene, what was the conversation EXACTLY that occurred between the LT and the detective, did the nurse do something that would constitute obstruction prior to the video starting etc, etc.. Im not exonerating anyone from any wrong doing, but I’m also not condemning them.. I’m just suggesting that until all the facts are flushed out, which you can bet they will be.. trying to place blame or condemn either side is premature and suggests a clear bias

          • KTPC

            Cops and the men who love them are always on about ambiguity and suspension of judgewhenever they see a cop acting in blatant violation of The law, but whenever they feel the slightest bit threatened, no matter how paranoid they are, they’re perfectly justified in shooting anyone who looks at them crosseyed, aren’t they?

      • Evil Genius

        Except it was the VICTIM, not the suspect who could not consent. There is no PC in this case to believe the VICTIM had committed a crime. So there are no “exigent circumstances” since there was no crime of which evidence may be lost.

        • A Chicken Farmer

          How exactly is it that you know there was no evidence that the VICTIM committed a crime? People keep saying there’s no probable cause to believe the truck driver committed a crime. You don’t know that for sure right? Because its possible that something was recovered at the scene right? Or its possible that the driver may have had narcotics on his person right? Or it is POSSIBLE (albeit would likely have already been released) that the truck driver was called in on a V&T complaint with someone stating they watched him drink a bottle of whiskey at the truck stop and then hop in his truck? I understand that all signs point to go, but there has yet to be anything released to the public that would rule out any other off the wall possibility… I think everyone can agree that people are insane, and you really cant rule anything out in todays day and age. For the last time.. for all I know, you could be absolutely right. There may be nothing there, and this cop may have gotten himself into some shit.. but.. for all you know, I could be right..

          • BJR1961

            The man was not under arrest, was not conscious to give consent, and no warrant existed to obtain the blood. All the police needed to do was to obtain a warrant. But they decided to pig-pile a nurse instead. Watch all 22 minutes. Every officer there was in on it.

          • DaveTanner

            We can form an educated opinion that there was no “evidence” found at the scene that would implicate the truck driver, based on the fact that they didn’t arrest him.

          • David Maggard

            …or use it to obtain a warrant. With electronic warrants it is pretty quick to obtain one if you have any evidence.

          • David Maggard

            Those would all be grounds to easily obtain a warrant, which they didn’t have or even try to get, and they already knew there was blood taken that could be tested once a warrant was obtained so there was no need for this incident unless they knew they would not be able to get a warrant.

      • MrAsmo

        It’s fairly simple. If you need consent, then absent of that, you need a warrant. I’m sure it varies by state, but I’ve been under the impression that the implied consent provisions were for arrests for suspicion/driving under the influence

      • Mike

        I just checked the implied consent law for Utah – the law states this: Utah
        law requires you to take a blood, breath, or urine test, or a test of
        “oral fluids” – saliva – if you are arrested for a DUI.
        Utah’s “implied
        consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who
        has probable cause to believe that you have been driving under the
        influence, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood,
        breath, urine, or saliva for the purpose of determining your blood
        alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken as soon as possible from
        when you were last driving and the officer gets to choose which test you
        take.

        The patient wasn’t under arrest for DUI, so my google law degree (translation: IANAL) suggests that the implied consent law doesn’t apply. So a warrant or patient consent was required here. Plus, if there was a MOI here (Memorandum of Understanding) between the hospital and the PD that actually covers these situations, then why did the cop and his supervisor believe that this MOI didn’t apply?

        I am usually a supporter of the PD here, even in cases that cross into gray areas. However, the cops messed up here, and they’re going to pay the price for it.

      • Tyrell Midland

        A few things here champ…. under Utah State Law (case law independent) it states:

        “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).”

        Emphasis on “At the direction of a peace officer HAVING GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN OPERATING OR IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A MOTOR VEHICHLE WHILE IN VIOLATION….”

        Citation: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S520.html?v=C41-6a-S520_2017050920170509

        I.e. This victim doesn’t fall under the state’s implied consent law. Literacy is great.

        Secondly, and more important still is the perpetuation of the BS that driving is a privilege and not a right… Remember, there is a start difference between something “not being a right” and a right not being protected by the government. Remember, the law has not always been on the right side of issues historically, this is nothing new.

        We have the right. Freedom of movement is a constitutional right and the mode of transportation was never specified. So just as the 1st amendment covers internet speech, even though the internet wasn’t around then or specifically mentioned, freedom of movement should cover all modes of transportation. Horses/carriages weren’t licensed during the time of our countries framing, because they understood the right to free movement. For your point to be valid, there would need to be a comparable licensing model on the modes of transportation that existed then… But there’s not.

        An important thing to note is in most places, the only way to travel from State to state requires an automobile, because pedestrian and horse traffic is prohibited on most freeway systems. This means you must drive, to exercise your right to free movement. How can you claim that someone has a right to something, but then impede that right with a privilege that they may or may not be able to exercise?

        Here’s some light reading for you.

        http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=njlsp

      • Joe Westmount

        you are wrong Chicken farmer. I hope you are not a police officer. You cannot sign away in advance 4th and 5th amendment rights. Per the Supreme court.

        The maximum remedy for refusing a blood draw is REVOCATION of a drivers license. There are proceedings for that. And they cannot go forward unless the patient is conscious.

        There is no way for a Police office to know where a patient is located. Going into patients rooms is criminal act. Something the LT in this case has been accused of in the past.

        There is a process, there is a hospital medical records and privacy officer that deals with these requests. They go over the legal basis and rule on it. If the police object they get a court order with the force of law. To pretend that anything else is legal is intellectually dishonest.

      • Bryan

        A) right to travel is not a privileged, it is a right.
        B) signing under duress is not consent.

    • Terry in GA

      “…..The patient was unconscious, he could not give consent. There was no proof of a crime and the only reasonable conclusion was that the guy fell asleep at the wheel…..”

      This patient was the driver of a truck which was the VICTIM of a chase suspect crossing into patient’s roadway and striking him head-on, resulting in explosive accident. The patient was not charged, suspected or questioned because there was no indication he did anything wrong.

      If they wanted the blood, they should be sent to get a warrant. No warrant, no blood.

      And the detective was a bully who didn’t like being refused his commands.

      • richard scalzo

        He seems to be the root of the entire incident. Until being ordered to make the arrest, nothing was done.

    • Gary Pagliaro

      I am a 25 year ER vet. I think he did a very good and fair job explaining the law, and not guessing where he didn’t know facts. He clearly blamed the officer and LT for either not knowing, or ignoring the law…

    • Todd Murphy

      That’s a nice opinion that you state, but unfortunately it’s totally wrong.

      Most states include a consent in your drivers license exam, meaning that when you sign for your license you are giving consent for police to test your blood if you are in an accident. You should read what you sign.

      Most states also include a penalty in the law should you be conscious and refuse – usually they suspend your drivers license.

      The Supreme Court ruling covers cases where consent is not obtained !

      • Vorenus

        Is this one of the most states?

        BTW, What Most States Do or whatever you find on a drivers license does not trump the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment.

        I have never seen what you are referring to and I would be hard to believe that receiving a drivers license gives a police officer the right to do whatever the hell he wants.

        All implied consents would be treatment from an emergency responder if your are not conscious and you also have an organ donor. I have never seen anything what you are talking about so if you can site a reference that would be great.

        So despite whatever you want to argue in this case the officer has been suspended, no charges were filed and she has received apologies.
        Now she will receive compensation for humiliation, false imprisonment, treated like a common criminal all because she was following the law and this police officer was having a bad day and took it out on her.

        • Todd Murphy

          Nice argument, the officer is suspended for arresting her not for taking blood. Cops cannot force a private person to perform a law enforcement act that’s why he is suspended.

          Maybe you should read some actual,court rulings, like the ones concerning your driving privledges. Driving isn’t a right and the government can and does place restrictions on it.

          • Vorenus

            What is your argument?

            No, driving isn’t a right but you can drive on private property right in front of a police officer with no license or insurance.

            Regardless of restrictions or rights they can’t trump the constitution so again what is your argument.

            You have none and are trying to fit an apple in an orange shaped hole.

            It was also not a law enforcement action.
            She gave the 3 reasons why she couldn’t take the blood and every single one of them is constitutionally based and backed up by legally based hospital policy.

            He was having a bad day and took it out on her because he has a badge and a gun.

            I have already been proven in my oral argument so why are you still bothering me.

            Your like a democrat after the election, you lost already.
            The dude’s suspended and being investigated.
            She’s going to win her lawsuit and this guy may actually be fired.

          • Madsenms

            Todd, if he would have tried to take the blood, absent literal consent, a search warrant, or an arrest, he would have been in violation of Utah Law and the 2016 Supreme Court decision on on this issue. He may well have also violated laws on trespassing in hospitals without approval of medical staff.

            Also the cost of not submitting for testing is the loss of your drivers license. You are not in fact consenting to having your blood drawn. Even then you will get a hearing.

  • Rebecca Five

    Thanks for the explanation.

  • Bobdole10

    I hope she sues and makes more than a million. I am extremely pro police, but this describes a police department out of control and the person who gave the order should be fired. Do cops have common sense anymore. Common sense and common decency would be all a normal, thinking human would need to know that what they tried to do was wrong.

    • kntuky

      Big supporter of law enforcement also, and I agree.This buffoon of an officer, lacks the good judgement to perform his job. He needs to be busted down as an example. He broke the law and abused his authority. He should be cuffed and stuffed in public setting. He was completely unreasonable and leaves a stain on the image of the vast majority of good officers out there that serves the public everyday.

      • richard scalzo

        Sounds like a total custerdfu*k. Involving several offers from different departments, no one seemed to know the actual facts.

        • David Maggard

          Considering the 2 cops early on discussed not having grounds for a warrant I think they at least knew some of the details, and the cop that shows up later on clearly knew the situation and had a horrible attitude

      • Jim Marshall

        There were several other officers who stood by and did nothing while she was assaulted. Cops who allow other cops to break the law are just as guilty

    • AlGator98

      Keep in mind that there are a lot of cops who don’t like EACH OTHER. I know that will be a shock to some, but it happens!
      — It doesn’t happen often, but cops will get so mad at each other they’ll shoot and kill each other in a fit of rage! (Mineloa Texas in 1950)

      • Bobdole10

        WHat the heck are you talking about

  • Burgess Krell ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Thank you for the explanation… now there is no need for any Internet lawyers to make fools of themselves while trying to look smart.

    • Bobdole10

      Yeah, sorta like what you’re doing.

      • Burgess Krell ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Right back atcha, slick.

  • Jack Boots

    Bust the Lt. Back to private. Remove him from a supervisory position.

    • Jason Douglas Holford

      Demotion? No way.Lt. James Tracy & Detective Payne need to be arrested for kidnapping and assault.

  • Jay Pee

    I didn’t see the Lt “ordered” the arrest of the nurse (1:15 in the video above) … I did see the supervisor (no sure if it was the Lt) who came in after the arrest to explain to the nurse why she was arrested. Including the cop whose bodycam filmed this encounter, that makes three cops who just so happen to be ignorant of the law?

  • Karyn Tee

    The detective and the police chief supporting his actions need to lose their badges before they sully the rest of police across the country. They were obviously trying to cover their own actions by forcing a toxicology screen on a person who is a victim of a police chase gone wrong. From their own dash cams:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtUb33u4bco

    • Anton Zuykov

      You don’t need a toxicology report in this case. This video clearly shows that a perp was on the wrong side of the road. And the fact that LEOs didn’t have a probable cause, hence no warrant, tells you that they were not planning to go for a truck driver as well.

      • Mike B

        You don’t understand the law. When a subject is unconcious or in a big rig, FAULT is not a relevant issue.

    • David Maggard

      The irony is I am not a fan of policies mandating police end chases, I think it encourages ppl to flee, but I believe they were worried about being sued, like happens sometimes in police chases, so they were trying to gather “evidence” to protect themselves, not to investigate a crime, that’s why they weren’t worried about a warrant, just wanted a blood test with drugs so they could cloud the issue.

  • Jay Pee

    Full bodycam video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJPVglqR4yM
    At 0:50 in:

    Cop [whispers] “So … why don’t they just go get a warrant?”
    Payne: “Because they don’t have PC [probable cause]”

    Nothing more damning than that.

  • Karyn Tee

    Here’s the longer bodycam video showing the detective admitting they did not have probable cause for the blood draw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?=47&v=hJPVglqR4yM

    • David Maggard

      I would LOVE a cleaned up version of the “why don’t we just get a search warrant” audio, but it sure sounds to me like he says “we don’t have anything”

      • Jay Pee

        Payne said “We don’t have PC”.

  • Scott Beers

    Sounds to me that the cops were looking for a scape goat, the trucker, to deflect any blame from the high speed police chase accident away from them. I hope the trucker and the nurse WIN BIG.

    • That’s a really good point.

      • David Zawistowski

        its not a good point, its called suspicion without facts to support that conclusion

        • bacchys

          I wouldn’t say it’s without facts. There’s no valid investigatory reason for the police to demand his blood. Which leaves us with that conclusion in the absence of any reasonable alternative.
          Their claim that they’re looking to “protect” the semi driver is specious.

          • Mary

            Trying to protect the injured driver makes sense. If they are claiming the dead driver was driving under the influence and it went to court they would be asking why both drivers blood was not ran. But saying that number one the supervisor should have come immediately and not used speaker phone. The policeman should have settled it with the supervisor. The nurse went up the chain of command and the supervisor should be reprimanded. the hospital administration did not do their job.

          • CB Dwight

            Mary, your comment is one of the most utterly retarded things I’ve ever read in my life. There is video of the collision. The driver being chased swerves sharply across several lanes and collides head-on with a truck. It is abundantly evident that the truck driver (Will Gray) was not in any conceivable way responsible for the collision. Any reasonable person would assign him 0% blame. HYPOTHETICALLY, on the exceedingly unlikely off-chance that he was on some drug or had alcohol in his system, the blood draw would have been used against him even though he was still at 0% fault in the collision. Collecting his blood without consent could in no way be protective of him.

            As for “the supervisor should have come in” and your mind-boggling attempt to shift blame from the police to the hospital, there was NO NEGOTIATING TO BE DONE. THERE WAS NO LACK OF CLARITY. Nurse Wubbles PRINTED OUT A GODDAMN INSTITUTIONAL POLICY AGREED TO BY THE SLCPD which in black and white prohibited a blood draw. No one on hospital staff is obligated to waste their time explaining the law to cops. Everyone at the hospital did their jobs just about perfectly. Whereas 100% of the police officers present (the one that ordered the assault, the one that did the assaulting, and the two that watched an assault take place twiddling their thumbs in spineless, cowardly complicity) failed to do their duty. Mary, you’re either dumb or evil. So, I’ll be polite and just assume you’re dumb.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            But but cops can do no wrong according to this site. I bet had this been a black nurse everyone would be taking the cop’s side.

          • CB Dwight

            I don’t think it has anything to do with race (and it’s really annoying when people insist upon dragging loosely tangential issues into an argument). I think it has to do with the fact that (1) Nurse Wubbles so absolutely, unambiguously, incontestably did not do a single thing wrong, and if fact did EVERYTHING right. AND (2) it was caught perfectly with clear audio and videotape. Up until now, relatively few high-profile police misconduct incidents have had someone so thoroughly innocent of all wrongdoing and having the event captured so clearly.

          • temporaryhero

            You assume the admin was on site. That assumes facts not in evidence. For all we know, the admin may have been in Aruba.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            The US Constitution wasn’t. It is everywhere 24/7/365…

          • bacchys

            It doesn’t make sense at all, and even if that’s their motive it doesn’t give them the authority to compel a blood draw. There’s no “we want to help” exception to the Fourth Amendment.

            The only people at fault here are the police officers. She clearly read them the policy that is an agreement between the police and the hospital. **He** should have gone back to his supervisor- the one who ordered him to arrest her if she didn’t acquiesce to his demand- and read the policy to him.

          • M.

            ” There’s no valid investigatory reason for the police to demand his blood. Which leaves us with that conclusion in the absence of any reasonable alternative.”

            motive is not evidence.

          • bacchys

            It’s also not any part of any exigency to bypass the Fourth Amendment.

          • Liberal? Like Tom Jefferson!

            Actually, motive is indeed evidence. Ask anyone who actually tries criminal cases in actual courts (me, for example), rather than the internet.
            If I can show that you had “X” reason to kill Bob, it helps to prove that you did indeed kill Bob. If the Defense can show that Jack, Jill, and Little Red also had reasons to kill Bob, or that you had no reason to kill Bob, it goes to weaken the case against you.

        • Bailey9778

          The damn cop SUSPECTED the nurse was breaking the law, wheres your comment about that!

          • Knights Hawk

            No, he didn’t. He knew she was obstructing his attempt to violate the law. And he blew a gasket.
            If they had cause, a phone call to a judge would have obtained a warrant. They knew there was no way in hell that was going to succeed, so they attempted to bypass policy and the Constitution.

          • Liberal? Like Tom Jefferson!

            You have the right to refuse to comply with a demand to break the law. In fact, you should refuse an illegal and unconstitutional demand by anyone to break the law.

          • Memphomaniac

            Yes. You DO have that Right. You may at times, suffer consequences of defending your Rights. In this case, the Nurse was arrested by failing to perform a medical procedure..order by…a Police Lt. Sorry folks…if I was that Nurse…I woulda practically BEGGED the arresting Officer to hit me a few times in the face…just as more evidence in the coming lawsuit! Congrats Ms. Nurse. You are a Professional. Enjoy your retirement, with that money!!!

          • Sheep O’Doom

            except blacks right?

          • Sheep O’Doom

            What law? What law did the victim or the nurse break?

    • danmcn61

      No, I doubt that. The PD clearly wanted a blood sample from the truck driver in order to complete the investigation and to show that the accident was purely the fault of the pickup driver who was being pursued. There was a miscommunication between the watch commander and the hospital and the entire matter should have been elevated to the next level,and if they did this entire incident would have been handled peacefully.

      • NC girl

        The nurse cannot simply give this guy’s blood because the police wanted it. He’s in a coma, he cannot give consent. For her to have done so would have cost her her job and her career, by violating her state’s nurse practice act, as well as opening the door to be sued by the truck driver. At best this cop is an ignorant bully.

        • richard scalzo

          Read the story. they didn’t ask her to draw blood. that’s why he responded as he’s trained to do it.

          • MrAsmo

            Doesn’t matter. In many instances, the nurse also has to be an advocate for her patient. Depending on other policies and requirements, doesn’t matter if it was God herself walking in, you might not be allowed to bring in your own people for that.

          • Kimberleely

            In all cases nurses ARE an advocate for their patients.

          • Anna H. (Anima Mundi)

            You’ve got to be kidding. Assautling a charge nurse who is following the hospital police that his leaders and her leaders agreed on together? You don’t know what you’re talking about on many levels.

          • Joseph Parker

            Really. He is admitted into the Hospital under care. Who is responsible the Doctor in charge of care and the Nurse. Not to mention you are now breaching HIPPA laws. Just because a story says something on the internet does not make it true.

          • Fred Snetzer

            HIPAA, Joseph Parker

          • Sheep O’Doom

            LOL I thought I misspelled it.

          • I was wondering – where’s the ER doc? Why isn’t he stepping up for his nurse?

          • bacchys

            Thank you for pointing out he’s trained to violate the law.

          • BJR1961

            Actually, he is trained to draw the blood, and begin a chain of evidence, for which the hospital would rather not be involved, but certainly can be. Once he was refused, all he had to do was obtain a warrant, and the blood draws which were taken immediately upon the patient’s arrival could be tested for drugs, eliminating the worry of drugs breaking down in his system over time. Or, after obtaining the warrant, he could have taken it himself. He tried all the ways you can NOT do it. He was attempting to break federal as well as state laws, before he ever assaulted the nurse.

          • bacchys

            He admits to another officer on the video that he can’t get a warrant.
            Richard scalzo said he responded as he’s trained to do. Taking that literally in this situation, that would mean he’s trained to arrest someone who is acting lawfully and with the authority to stop him from acting unlawfully.
            She was the Charge Nurse for a comatose patient. She had a professional and ethical responsibility to her patient. His arrest of her is akin to a cop arresting a parent for refusing to allow that cop to question their child without an attorney present.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            and for that should be arrested.

          • David Maggard

            Really? She is calm and clearly explains the situation and he loses his shit, pretty sure that’s not what their training is.

          • hokiefireman

            Her obligation is to prevent her patient from being unlawfully assaulted.

          • disqus_psntH3wGuy

            He is not an employee of the hospital. He does not have the right to go against the ER Staff and hospital protocol.

          • tanya morris

            Richard, he was in the ICU with burns. Blood would have had to be drawn via a central line by the nurse.

          • BJR1961

            I never thought of that… but you’re absolutely right. That central line would have been placed already… Evidently he was trying to go in without protective gear too, then…

          • CelticGyrl

            The officer is a trained “phlebotomist” according to the information in the news. If the patient had a central line, that is not accessed by phlebotomists! A RN or doctor is required to do blood draws from a central line because it is so important to maintain that line for life saving interventions. No one touches a central line for that reason.

            I am a staunch supporter of law enforcement and also a ER RN. This incident occurred because the SLCPD was told no and refused to accept this. The truck driver was an innocent victim, not the cause of the wreck. Blood work would have been drawn right away to determine several things which must be considered in treatment protocols. Law enforcement would not want that blood because of chain of custody issues. Since the patient was unconscious and could not give consent, the hospital, by way of the charge nurse, was guided by existing hospital policy and printed that out and gave it to the detective. This policy was an agreement between the hospital and SLCPD. There legally could not be any blood drawn for the police without a warrant. Period.

            I can only speculate what the driving reason was behind the Lt and the Detective demanding this blooddraw. i applaud the charge nurse for sticking to her guns and remaining an advocate for her patient. She did everything right. SLCPD is at fault in this incident and should be held accountable. Training is just the beginning. They owe this nurse a widely publicized apology.

        • Eric Newsom

          As was stated in the article, he could have just taken the blood without the consent of the hospital if he wanted. I’ve spoken with several nurses about this incident, and they say blood was likely already drawn by the hospital for medical reasons, but they couldn’t turn over any blood, or consent to blood being drawn without a warrant. That brings up the next logical point – they could have just gotten a warrant from a judge, then I’m sure the nurse would have been happy to comply. I hope she becomes an instant millionaire.

          • tanya morris

            This was an intubated burn patient with a central line. The nurse would have had to draw the blood.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            and the Truck driver would have had grounds not only to sue the cop The city The Department but the hospital as well.

      • dan

        And what the hell was so urgent to do what was done! Police do not need the kind of bad press this power incident generated!

        • richard scalzo

          Because the evidence (alcohol in the blood) dissipates over time.

          As he didn’t have the facts of the mva, I doubt he knew what that driver’s involvement was in the event. He was there solely to get the blood for the investigation.

          • dan

            Should have came armed with a warrant. Follow the law! Do not rough up a nurse who was following the law!

          • David Maggard

            They clearly discuss the fact that he is the VICTIM in the video, that they have nothing to use to get a warrant, one of the cops also discusses the fact that they could use already drawn blood to test AFTER they got an order, but they seems determined to teach her a lesson because she wouldn’t cooperate.

          • jamaicajoe

            The cop was on a power trip. Had to have 100 % control over the situation, couldn’t spend 5 minutes on a call requesting an electronic warrant. He isn’t qualified to be a mall cop, which will likely be his next and only career choice.

          • David Maggard

            I think they knew they would never GET a warrant

          • Tonya Weirum Henson

            There were no exigent circumstances. It takes 30 minutes to an hour to obtain an electronic warrant. Plus, SLC police came out later and said the hospital already had the results they were looking for from labs the hospital drew, they just needed a subpoena. This was an experienced officer who is well aware that many hospitals draw toxicology screens and should have asked. Watch the full video then make some more excuses….he set out to make this happen.

          • bacchys

            He also tells another cop that there’s no PC (probable cause) to get a warrant, which is why they spend more time bullying and arresting her than it would take to get a warrant.

          • Christina Brearley

            Right….but if they had a legal right to blood they could have just subpoenaed results from blood Drawn on admission-which includes a tox screen in all traumas. This was at least stupid–but more likely a big jerk off for the watch commander who didn’t like the lack of ass kissing he had been receiving from the hospital. The guy who graduated in 2006…but has been a cop for 22 years. We have to respect LE, so LE has to be honest and respectable.

          • bacchys

            See Birchfield v. North Dakota.
            There’s no excuse for his actions.

        • Sheep O’Doom

          This is what us supposed “cop haters” have been complaining about. Why Black Lives Matter exists. Why football players are taking a knee. When cop unions support cops like this it destroys their credibility.

      • richard scalzo

        that’s how we handled it but we didn’t have trained techs. Call the hospital administrator. the more facts that come out, the clearer it becomes. He was ordered to make an arrest by someone who probably didn’t have the facts themselves.

      • Lyle L

        Lol they were hoping the trucker was under the influence otherwise no reason for the victim to be tested. The fault rests on the police department for engaging in a high speed pursuit

        • jp

          In fatality accidents, all vehicle drivers involved are tested. Also as a CDL holder, anytime they are in an accident they are required to give a sample of blood, breath or urine. That is a requirement of CDL licensing. So the victim in this case cannot refuse. Blaming the police for pursuing a criminal is about as asinine as blaming ford because the criminal was driving the ford. The criminal chose to run, the criminal chose not to stop and chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

          • Bryan Moser

            Are the police subject to blood tests also? Since blood tests are required from all involved parties, Wouldn’t that include them also?

          • dhd123

            Only if the officer was physically involved with the accident.

          • REALConservative

            It would seem they were physically driving the cars that were in pursuit of the suspect.

          • dhd123

            They were not physically involved in the crash, as in, their cars are still completely intact with no scratches or dents from this crash between a pickup truck and a semi.

          • REALConservative

            Irrelevant. For you to think you have a point suggest that the perpetrator was fleeing no one.

          • dhd123

            Geeze, you are seriously obtuse.There is a difference between: 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬. And: 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐯𝐞𝐫( 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐈𝐓 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞, 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐛𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐚 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐚 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬, 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩.) 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐤 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬. The first example is what actually happened, where the police were not physically involved in the crash and the second example, where an officer was physically involved by pitting the fleeing suspect.

          • REALConservative

            It would seem at this point you are arguing with yourself.

            But hey, if you want to suggest that the police chasing the guy were somehow not really involved, then it’s going to be mildly amusing to watch you fail colossally at making your case.

          • dhd123

            phys·i·cal·ly
            ˈfizik(ə)lē/Submit
            adverb
            1.
            in a manner relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
            “physically demanding work”
            2.
            in a way that relates to the real world and things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind.
            “cyberspace is a virtual place; it does not physically exist”
            ——————————————————————————————————————–

            Fill that space between your ears, The cops were in the chase, but they physically didn’t cause the crash, that happened when the (Dead) idiot criminal physically came in contact with the truck,

          • Sheep O’Doom

            as they was chasing that would make them physically involved.

          • jp

            If the Officers were involved in the accident, not the chase. Remember its the criminal that crashed into another driver. The officers weren’t involved in the crash. If they used force or were involved in the actual crash, then yes at least in our area.

          • dhd123

            So the nurse knew hospital policy and not State CDL license policy. She followed her employers rules and it was a decision that had to be made from above her pay grade. If hospital administration would have told her that they authorized her to draw the blood, she would have drew the blood. Hospital admin apparently didn’t have a CDL license rule/law book on hand either, that is what they have lawyers for, which would have been admin’s first call. Trust me, the truck driver and the nurse will sue and will win.

          • Phil White

            That may be a requirement for CDL licensing but that does not trump the 4th Amendment. It means that if you have a CDL license and if you refuse to be tested the administrative law process people who ever they are, can revoke or suspend your license. That does not mean that cops can go around the 4th Amendment. This guy was in a burn unit and unconscious and could have very well died by some jerk stealing his blood. My source for that belief comes from an opinion of Dr Joseph Warren written about Dr Thomas Young actions in dealing with a sick female (Mrs. Davis) written in 1767. Who was Joseph Warren? The farther of our nation, and I believe no one comes close to him not even George Washington. He died for my personal liberty and I am not happy when evil people try to take it from me and my fellow countrymen.

            The cops were saying they were investigating a crime, William Gray did not commit a crime and inferring this was bearing of false witness and dishonest.

          • dhd123

            Ah, Dr Joseph Warren, a Patriot who gave his life at Bunker Hill. As far as the CDL, it was not the driver refusing the test so really the CDL did not even factor into any of this. In the course of treating this man, the Dr. already ordered a blood test to make sure there were no other overt things that might stand in the way of treatment. If you go to the ER, blood work is one of the first things a doctor orders, just part of the treatment plan. That blood test is confidential but will be part of the medical records over all and covered under HIPAA, (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) is United States legislation that provides data privacy and security provisions for safeguarding medical information. The truck driver was in his lane driving down the road, the fleeing criminal crossed into the truck and no way to avoid the crash. I have been a CDL licensed truck driver who drove from coast to coast(transcon), 80,000 pounds does not just stop on a dime, this truck driver was a VICTIM, my guess is since he could sue the police department because they caused the situation by engaging in a high speed chase. High speed chases are stopped more often than not because of the danger to the public it causes, it used to be the other way around where departments would chase right to the end. If there would have been any type drug, prescription or not, found in the drivers blood, it would be used against the driver in any lawsuit. Just like the marijuana was used in the defence of the police officer in the Philando Castile case, when IMO, that officer should be in prison.

          • Phil White

            When I went into the ICU I did not get a blood test. I went through my records. It was a panel of three doctors that made the decisions, this was at LDS hospital. Unless the police got it done clandestinely, there was cop involved in the accident. I lost a lot of blood, I would be very angry if they did take blood. Not everybody gets nurse who has been in the Olympics and has the confidence to fend off such an evil attack.

          • dhd123

            If you had an IV, then blood was taken, you just didn’t know it.
            C = Circulation with haemorrhage control
            Blood loss is the main preventable cause of death after trauma. To assess blood loss rapidly observe:

            Level of consciousness.
            Skin colour.
            Pulse.
            Bleeding – this should be assessed and controlled:
            IV access should be achieved with two large cannulae (size and length of cannula is determinant of flow not vein size) in an upper limb. Access by cut down or central venous catheterisation may be done according to skills available. At cannula insertion, blood should be taken for crossmatch and baseline investigations.
            IV fluids will need to be given rapidly, usually as 250 ml to 500 ml warmed boluses (10-20 ml/kg in children). Often a total of 2-3 L of IV fluids is necessary (40 ml/kg in children), which will then need to be followed by blood transfusion (O negative to begin with, if typed blood is not available). Ringer’s lactate is the preferred initial crystalloid solution.[11]
            Direct manual pressure should be used to stem visible bleeding (not tourniquets, except for traumatic amputation, as these cause distal ischaemia).
            Transparent pneumatic splinting devices may control bleeding and allow visual monitoring; surgery may be necessary if these measures fail to control haemorrhage.
            Occult bleeding into the abdominal cavity and around long-bone or pelvic fractures is problematic but should be suspected in a patient not responding to fluid resuscitation.

            https://patient.info/doctor/trauma-assessment

          • Phil White

            Two of the three doctors did not want me to get a blood transfusion. The doctor in the minority was not happy with this decision. I guess I was way passed the point of usually getting one but I was so healthy the two decided against the extra blood. I don’t know if you know Utah but I was in a very larger Singles Ward and I had a lot of co-workers friends from college, they all mobbed the hospital. Many of the people in my Ward were medical professionals, so everything was questioned and scrutinized. There were visiting hours so the mob may have been gone, so Detective Jeff Payne(I was in SLC) or some other law enforcement could have come in and talked the attending nurse to get a sample of my blood. My story was much the same as this news story, my accident was outside of Salt Lake valley but I ended up in Salt Lake City due to the severity of the injuries. And you know I had so much to blood to spare after soaking my jeans and hair and I am so incredible healthy, that good health was a very recurring in topic in my medical records, if the government wants all my blood I am sure they would have good reason. How could I question. I will tell of another part of my saga. I went to a neurologist and he wanted MRI and all these other tests to check my brain, it is standard from what I have been through. I had no problems, I am a minimalist and I had a bad feeling about this. I went to another one and she was even more adamant, well forget the euphemism. She was even more manipulative. I did get her to promise to look over my CTs and medical records. Weeks later I got a panicked call from a nurse that I should not get a MRI. I had a piece of metal in my head, and it could very well kill me to get a MRI, I did not know about this piece of metal. Well next I get told to get the piece of metal removed. Well as I said I am a minimalist and you know what I am glad I am one that gets to make the decision. I am not insecure that people can make their own choices, even if it is decision by amateur. My rights come from God not the state.

            I will tell you why I don’t want anybody to get a blood test results that police would want. Say I was taking something for a cough and I accidentally took something that had Guaifenesin and Dextromethorphan. Well Guaifenesin is perfectly acceptable to take and operate a motor vehicle. Then I was in an accident similar to what happened in this story. Now let us say we were in Idaho were this driver was from. Now because of the Tort laws in Idaho my only recourse is using last chance doctrine(maybe others), and you know when you are at that point only the lawyers are winning. We all know that by starting to name things in the defendants blood like Guaifenesin and juries are going to think you did something negligent no matter the impressiveness of your expert witnesses.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            One reason that is is the cops REFUSING to PIT the chased vehicle. LAPD & CHP are notorious for this.

          • dhd123

            I would ram a fleeing suspect as many times as I could, but that is just me.

          • Linda Giles

            He needs to have a warrant, be arrested or give consent to draw blood.None of this was there! If you draw blood on a pt. w/o consent it is assault! The nurse is in the right! The detective & Leutenant should be suspended during the Investigation! The Victim is the truck driver. The Criminal was Killed. My husband has a CDL and the company you drive for enforces that policy! He was a victim in an accident & his company made him get a drug screen! Also the detective an his superior chose their inappropriate actions , so now there are/will/should be consequences, period. Who do they think will take care of and advocate for them when they need it?. Respect is a two-way street! Escalation seems to be a big problem

          • disqus_psntH3wGuy

            Not sure about Utah laws, but in my state When he said “You are under arrest” if it is an unlawful arrest he is guilty of kidnapping and assault.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            But but cops can do no wrong They never break the law to say otherwise means you hate cops.

          • VaHam

            Interesting apparently Lt. Tracy told Det. Payne to arrest her so since they discussed the arrest in advance of it taking place are they bot then guilty of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and assault?

          • bacchys

            None of that justifies the cop demanding a blood draw. The CDL bit has zero to do with law enforcement.

            Yes, the victim can refuse. The perp fleeing the scene could have refused. The barely-a-year-old SCOTUS case holding that consent or a warrant is required involved people under arrest for drunk driving in an “implied consent” state and they were entitled to refuse.

          • BooBooTheFool

            The SCOTUS had ruled on this in 2013 as well. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/11-1425/

          • Joe Westmount

            I see several UNINFORED presumably policemen answering how the patient cannot refuse the blood test.
            This is ALARMING!!!!. Patients certainly can, and the legal remedy from the police is to obtain a warrant or start proceedings to revoke a license. Thats is it. If the patient is comatose those proceedings cannot even take place.
            Jp you are simply wrong.
            Whitewashing this only serves to tarnish the good name of law abiding police. The lieutenant in the bodycam said that the nurse was interfering with “HIS LAW”.
            Watch how quickly his law comes down.
            You are on the wrong side of justice if you support or condone any of these actions.

          • uselesslegs

            I’ll assume you’re trolling, because otherwise I don’t understand, especially with all the information that’s available for this item, moreso than we see for a lot of others, how you could get it so wrong with regard to this incident.

            Not one of the three criteria were in place for a blood draw sample.

            There was no patient consent.
            There was no warrant.
            The patient wasn’t under arrest.

            The detective was specifically on the Blood Draw Unit, with the overt implication being that being part of such, he was well aware of the requirements that needed to be in place, to have his request fulfilled. What we see is a very calm and slightly looking nervous nurse, showing a printed out guideline to said detective…that then places her in handcuffs and carts her off to the cruiser. He let his obvious anger justify the misuse of his authority. Everyone, including the police chief have admitted not only was he in the wrong, but he completely mishandled the situation.

            What I can’t believe is that the police chief, especially after such an incident and display on the detectives part, was put onto another public related patrol, instead of sticking him behind a desk, if they weren’t going to suspend him, while this is all being investigated. That doesn’t sound smart at all.

          • BJR1961

            And all of this happened over a week ago, but the nurse released it onto nursing sites. What disturbed me most is that he was allowed to treat her like he did, with none of his partners trying to stop him from ruining his career…

          • T. Edward Price

            Over a month ago.

          • VaHam

            I believe the arrest took place on July 26 well over a month ago. I am sure it took the nurses lawyer some time to obtain the body cam video. She released the video(s) on I think the 1st of this month.

          • jamaicajoe

            I think the Supreme Court might have a different opinion.

          • REALConservative

            Incorrect.

          • funnyhaha71

            Utah law is different. If the officer said he wanted the blood draw to prove that the driver was under the influence, there would have been implied consent for the blood draw. The officer said he wanted to prove that the driver was not under the influence. That eliminates implied consent in Utah.

          • Phil White

            I can’t find this in Utah law? I asked a guy on facebook who was saying the same thing on Friday and got no response. I would sure like to read this and make my own interpretation.

          • disqus_psntH3wGuy

            An unconscious victim cannot give consent either. CDL may require him to consent but it is not automatic, he still has to give consent each time.

          • T. Edward Price

            Also as a CDL holder, anytime they are in an accident they are required to give a sample of blood, breath or urine.

            Not true! You’re referring to DOT recordable accidents only. Not all accidents are DOT recordable. I’m sure the SLCPD will say that they were merely trying to enforce compliance with federal law as found in 49 CFR, part 382.303, which requires Post Crash DOT Drug and Alcohol testing for DOT Crashes (crashes which involve a fatality or serious injury requiring treatment away from the scene of the accident, or involve a commercial vehicle being towed from the scene) for CDL holders within eight hours. In a 2016 decision (Birchfield v North Dakota) SCOTUS ruled that, in the absence of consent, the collecting of a blood sample required a warrant. Although the regulations governing commercial truck drivers holding a CDL have generally fallen under Interstate Commerce law, until tested in court, the SCOTUS decision would also apply in this case. There was neither legal nor lawful reason to allow the victim’s blood to be drawn without his consent. The actions of ALL of the officers involved were both unlawful and immoral.

          • Tim Burns

            Actually, he CAN refuse. It would cost him his commercial license, but he still has 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination. Since the subject was in a coma and couldn’t verbally refuse, a warrant or being under arrest were the only ways his blood could legally be drawn. You have to take ALL the circumstances into account and not just go by the letter of the law.

      • bacchys

        That’s nonsense. There wasn’t any need to draw his blood to show that. What it could have done, perhaps, is deflect from the Utah Highway Patrol being held liable for his injuries.

        The “miscommunication” stemmed from the police not listening.

      • jamaicajoe

        They wanted a blood test because if for any reason the truck driver were found to be impaired, it would deflect a significant percentage of any lawsuit by the truck driver or his estate.

        • REALConservative

          No problem.

          Then get a warrant.

          Obtaining the sample in violation of law renders the result otherwise irrelevant.

          • Phil White

            Not in criminal court, but what about civil tort litigation court?

      • REALConservative

        Incorrect.

        There was no “miscommunication.” There was a failure of law enforcement to even consider that they were wrong and they responded with the violence that has become so typical of modern law enforcement and people who lack the intellectual capacity for critical thinking and human decency.

        This is not an isolated incident. This is yet another reflection of the horrible direct that law enforcement has been going for quite some time and we keep warning you. Most people ignore us until a successful white female former Olympian becomes the victim.

        • David E Brown

          you think police are violent. wait until socialists take over , then you will see violence, just look at Venezuela

          • Jim Marshall

            So we should continue ignoring police who break the law? What is it with law and order folks who don’t believe the the police should be required to follow the law like everyone else.

          • David E Brown

            By no means, every person is equal under the law. No one is exempt. And especially Police. But the vast majority of Law Enforcement Officers are The kind that would lay down their life, For YOU.

          • Jim Marshall

            Then why isn’t the “vast majority” of Law Enforcement Officers doing anything about the bad cops in their midst? Why did we see so many cops standing around doing nothing as this nurse was assaulted? Any cop who witnesses another cop break the law and does not intervene is not a good cop.

          • David E Brown

            No one will say anything to you that will stop you from hating police. Maybe you ought to move to a socialist utopia like Cuba or Venezuela, so you can be happy?

          • Jim Marshall

            Insisting that the police are bound by the same laws as everyone else is hating the police? Why is it law and order types don’t believe that LEOs are obligated to follow the law? Why do cops always fall back on the silly argument that if you believe ih the constitution and your rights you are some sort of communist? I do my job and am held accountable for doing it. Why is it so difficult to hold police officers to the same standard? (and I’ll cut off your next argument at his head, a police officer is not in the top 10 of most dangerous professions.)

          • Sheep O’Doom

            So you think what this cop did was ok? He did nothing wrong in your eyes right?

          • David E Brown

            From the preliminary facts I think that detective will, at the very least be fired and receive a large law suit. based on the video alone it looks to me that he was in the wrong. but I am waiting for the investigation to be done and all the facts have come to light.

          • VaHam

            This incident took place on July 26 but I think I understood from the mayor’s press conference they eve though the chief claimed they were out front on this and began an investigation and the mayor states a parallel one by citizens is in process I am not clear on dates. The chief said he didn’t see the entire video until the day before the briefing over a month after the arrest took place. So when he said they got out in front of this and within 24 hours started the investigations was he talking about 24 hours after the arrest or 24 hours after the video was released by the nurse a month after she was arrested? Some reporter should be asking for clarification on that point because it is important. Was it only after this took storm on the internet that investigations started or have they been going on for well over a month now. If they have been going on for over a month when will they be complete? I for one plan to do every thing I can to keep this alive until the outcome is announced so that is does not get swept under the rug.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            and THOSE cops PROTECT cops like this one. If your riding in a car with a group & one of that group kills someone YOU ARE AS GUILTY of the crime as they are…Same goes for cops If one breaks the law & the rest cover for him then they are ALL equally guilty.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            This site was set up to SUPPORT cops like this. It was only a matter of time before white innocent people start becoming victims THEN it becomes a problem.

          • REALConservative

            Did you really think that was a reasonable benchmark?

            Has the condition of modern police law enforcement gotten so bad that the best comparison you can come up with is Venezuela?

            Holy crap.

      • Radgalut

        The Unconscious truck driver was a part time reserve Police officer from Rigby Idaho. Not that it should change anything but his police chief has also thanked the Nurse.

        • Sheep O’Doom

          Maybe the victim cop is a cop hater too. Hope he survives then burns his Blue lives matter crap.

      • CB Dwight

        This is utter and complete BS. There was NO miscommunication. The nurse explained precisely with a clear-as-day written policy that was agreed to by the SLCPD. No “elevation to the next level” was needed. The fact that a black and white institutional policy that was agreed to by the SLCPD tells you that this question had ALREADY reached the highest levels of the institutions, a decision was made, and that all concerns should be now be dealt with at a low level. Cops literally arrested someone for not breaking the law (and yes, it is a LAW that nurses cannot turn over private medical information — much less biological specimens!– to 3rd parties). This was not a miscommunication. That was, in the most literal sense possible, several cops conspiring together to harass and then physically assault a nurse.

    • Todd Murphy

      Are you aware that most states REQUIRE a blood draw from ALL DRIVERS involved in a serious injury by vehicle ?

      That means if someone runs a stop sign and your mother gets hit and suffers a broken arm SHE has to be tested as well as the person who ran the sign. The only thing that changed in 2016 is now the cops have to get her consent or a warrant . Most of These laws fail to even require reasonable suspicion that anyone is impaired but simply mandate the test. A failure in the legislative language .

      There is no excuse making or hiding fault about a chase !

      At most it is exactly what this article describes. Untrained officers operating in a pre 2016 Supreme Court ruling manner. This is a training issue, a harsh looking one yes but prior to last year you would and could be arrested for failing to draw the blood or interfering in the blood draw.

      • Patti Harding Rooks

        The nursed asked if he was under arrest, the cop replied no so consent is still required.

        • Linda Giles

          Corrrect!

        • Todd Murphy

          You don’t have to be under arrest to be the subject of police action folks.

          Evidence is gathered all the time against people who are not under arrest and consent is obtained without being under arrest just as evidence is obtained while you are under arrest.

          Your constitutional protections against search and seizure have nothing to do with your custodial status.

          The argument here is twofold. # 1 is can blood be drawn by the police, I say yes if the driver consented when applying for his DL.

          And

          # 2. Can the state ( the police ) force a private citizen to perform a law enforcement function ? I say no.

          The arrest is unlawful from the sencond point not the first.

          • Joe Westmount

            Todd thinks he knows law…. First the UTAH supreme court states a warrant is needed.

            Second who will draw the blood. A phlebotomist cannot draw blood without a doctors order…… Nor can a Nurse draw blood either. She cannot even identify the patient under Hipaa.

            Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that drawing blood is not so urgent that officers shouldn’t first get a warrant, although they allowed the blood results to be used as evidence.
            In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated in Missouri v. McNeely that police have to get a warrant to draw blood without a subject’s consent. And last year, the court reiterated in Birchfield v. North Dakota that “implied consent” was not a basis to demand a blood draw.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            Todd thinks cops can do no wrong EVER. He is part of the problem & why this page exists for people like him. MAYBE this will change & we can support GOOD cops while opposing Pigs like this.

        • Todd Murphy

          Being under arrest has absolutely nothing to do with the blood draw that’s why it’s called implied consent

      • Dennis Zonn

        “Based on the criminal violation, and the lawfulness of the search, it is fairly certain that the arrest was unlawful.”………..”At most it is exactly what this article describes. Untrained officers operating in a pre 2016 Supreme Court ruling manner. This is a training issue, a harsh looking one yes but prior to last year you would and could be arrested for failing to draw the blood or interfering in the blood draw.”

        Do citizens get to claim ignorance of the law as a legal defense?

        • RoseBudd55

          In re ‘Do citizens get to claim ignorance of the law as a legal defense?’ Yes. They do all the time even when they are charged for breaking the same law again and again!

          • Mike M

            And do such defenses generally hold up? Let’s also not whitewash the fact Payne has not even been charged with a crime yet, so as of right now – there’s no need for him to give any such defense.

            Let’s it break it down for you Rose since you seem a bit stubborn in your responses – Would doing 80 in a 55 get me a verbal warning because oops, I didn’t notice the speed limit dropped to 55mph 2 miles back? Dennis’ point still stands. Police operate by different laws than the rest of us and most of the time, are held to lower standards than the rest of us. Fire Jeff Payne (and the police chief), revoke their pensions, and charge Payne with assault and false imprisonment. We also need to abolish qualified immunity. If a lawsuit is filed and a judgement is issued the funds should be paid out of the offending officer’s mortgage.

          • Maud Kennedy

            Is it a valid argument? I don’t think so.

      • bacchys

        That’s nonsense. The policy she read them was an agreement between the police department and the hospital. There’s no lack of training issue here. There’s a lack of discipline and a failure to follow the law.

      • cyndilenz

        sorry. nurses don’t take orders from police.

        • Todd Murphy

          That is true, the state cannot force private citizens to perform a law enforcement act.

          The arrest was illegal b/c of that not b/c the draw was illegal.

      • Joe Westmount

        I see several UNINFORED presumably policemen answering how the patient cannot refuse the blood test.
        This is ALARMING!!!!. Patients certainly can, and the legal remedy from the police is to obtain a warrant or start proceedings to revoke a license. Thats is it. If the patient is comatose those proceedings cannot even take place.

        You cannot sign your constitutional rights from the 4th and 5th amendment away. The remedy for refusing is revocation of a driver license. AND that proceeding CANNOT Take place if the patient is comatose.

        • Todd Murphy

          Sorry but you can. If the state revokes your license for refusing then that fact alone should tell you that you cannot refuse. How can they take your DL if you didn’t have to consent ?

          If you are a license holding driver chances are you have already consented

          • Joe Westmount

            This whole fact has been adjudicated . Its a civil matter and cannot be the basis of an arrest.

            http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/09/01/paul-cassell-cop-who-arrested-nurse-was-wrong-but-the-law-is-complicated/

          • Joe Westmount

            implied consent has not been law for some time.
            Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that drawing blood is not so urgent that officers shouldn’t first get a warrant, although they allowed the blood results to be used as evidence.
            In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated in Missouri v. McNeely that police have to get a warrant to draw blood without a subject’s consent. And last year, the court reiterated in Birchfield v. North Dakota that “implied consent” was not a basis to demand a blood draw.

        • Todd Murphy

          Read the actual ruling

          • Joe Westmount

            Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that drawing blood is not so urgent that officers shouldn’t first get a warrant, although they allowed the blood results to be used as evidence.
            In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated in Missouri v. McNeely that police have to get a warrant to draw blood without a subject’s consent. And last year, the court reiterated in Birchfield v. North Dakota that “implied consent” was not a basis to demand a blood draw.

          • Joe Westmount

            Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that drawing blood is not so urgent that officers shouldn’t first get a warrant, although they allowed the blood results to be used as evidence.
            In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated in Missouri v. McNeely that police have to get a warrant to draw blood without a subject’s consent. And last year, the court reiterated in Birchfield v. North Dakota that “implied consent” was not a basis to demand a blood draw

    • Lyle L

      high speed chase put the public in danger, trucker has to pay the price for a cop having a big ego

      • temporaryhero

        You might want to read the article again. The trucker was not being chased, but a second party in a pickup truck. The trucker was an unfortunate victim *of* the chase, when the pickup slammed into him and the explosion lit him on fire.

        • Brian Brandt

          I think maybe you should read the article again. The police are on the hook for a chase that injured the innocent truck driver.

          Unless . . . hey, just maybe we can skate on this. What if the trucker’s on something! Let’s get a blood sample.

          • renegadesix

            You are an idiot. The chances of the trucker winning a lawsuit against the police are slim and none — and slim left town many years ago. Cops know this so that could not have been the reason for the blood draw order.

            The only one who has a case here is the nurse.

          • bacchys

            Actually, his chances of winning a lawsuit against the police is quite strong. The Utah Supreme Court ruled back in ’13 that the police can be liable for third-party injuries resulting from a police chase.

          • renegadesix

            Actually, having a cognizable theory and winning are two entirely different things. There are also immunity issues at stake that prevent most of these cases from ever seeing a jury. Utah has a governmental immunity statute that applies to police officers.

          • Tim Burns

            That exempts the officers from liability individually, not the agency or the city they work for. If the city’s actions cause harm to a third party, they may be held liable civilly for damages.

          • renegadesix

            Actually, it works for the agency/city too. It is basic agency law. If the agent cannot be held liable, neither can the principal. So, if the officer (agent) is immune, the third party cannot recover against the city (principal). Also, many jurisdictions do not allow suits against the agencies because they are not deemed to be entities with the capacity to sue or be sued.

          • Nick Barone

            And I’d bet you’d love to be the defense attorney on this one wouldn’t you? Lawyers are near the bottom of the trust meter as it is but someone who specializes in getting bad cops back on the street you could not be any further down the chart.

          • renegadesix

            Nope. I’m not sure how many times I can say they did wrong here. This is one that should settle. But when a bad guy runs from the cops and crashes into an innocent, that is NOT the cops’ fault, that is the bad guy’s fault — plain and simple.

            There is someone beneath lawyers, cop hating scumbags like you.

          • ezemail

            The trucker has no chance? That’s not true, I’ll post a link of a similar example from a high speed chase causing an innocent motorist death, and this city paid $500,000 to settle. That’s why departments won’t always chase a suspect at high speed because there is a risk to other motorist. The trucker definitely has a chance at a settlement or winning a lawsuit.
            http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-police-settlement-20170403-story.html

          • renegadesix

            You do understand the difference between a city run by liberals SETTLING a lawsuit, and a city who backs its officers and refusing to settle FIGHTING a lawsuit, right? Between state immunity, qualified immunity, and statutory law enforcement immunity that a lot of states have enacted (including the state in this story), the chances of winning (defined as surving a motion to dismiss, summary judgment, getting to trial, and convincing a jury) one of these lawsuits is VERY small.

            What you won’t find articles on are all of these cases where the officers won on a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. The media rarely ever reports when the officers win a BS lawsuit that shouldn’t have been filed in the first place.

            This is Utah — a very conservative venue — not Baltimore.

          • ezemail

            Just fyi, the mayor of Salt Lake City is a democrat, but unlike you I don’t think that will make a difference. The truck driver might get nothing, but only a true idiot would call someone else an idiot for pointing out the police can be held liable for their actions and there have been settlements and believe it or not cases won even in conservative areas.

          • renegadesix

            That’s not why I called him an idiot. I called him an idiot for thinking that was the motive behind the cops’ actions.

          • Mind-boggling

            … You’re the idiot. It literally took me 5 seconds to Google cases of Salt Lake City settling lawsuits of high speed chases by police resulting in the accident/death of an innocent victim. Maybe you need to return that law degree you got out of that box of cracker jacks. Here is one: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/362750/SL-SETTLES-2-SUITS-IN-FATAL-CRASH.html

          • bacchys

            Well, none of their excuses for why they did what they did make any sense.

            That one actually does. The Utah Supreme Court held in ’13 that police agencies could be liable for third party injuries resulting in a police chase.

          • renegadesix

            And Utah also has an immunity statute. As I said before, having a theory and winning a case are two entirely different things.

          • bacchys

            I’m not aware of any state that doesn’t have qualified immunity for officers. They still manage to get sued.

            This one would be fairly easy to win. It fails the “reasonably stupid cop rule” (the phrase criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield uses to describe the “reasonable mistake of law” rule handed down in Heien v. North Carolina). Tracy is on video after he’s condescendingly misstated the law to the nurse saying if he’d known before he’d ordered her arrest the hospital had already drawn blood he wouldn’t have done it. So there’s no exigency or reasonable belief of exigency for him to hang his hat on: a failure to ask a simple question isn’t reasonable. There’s little to no chance it would go to court, and whether the jurisdiction is conservative or liberal doesn’t make a difference.

            In the case where the Utah Supreme Court held that the police could be liable for third party injuries they had qualified immunity. Qualified immunity doesn’t preclude the department as an entity itself getting sued. It’s more difficult, as the plaintiff has to show a “pattern or practice” and some kind of dereliction with respect to training and policies, but it happens all the time.

          • renegadesix

            [Sigh] what we have here is someone playing internet lawyer with a real lawyer. Immunity doesn’t stop you from GETTING sued, it stops the Plaintiff from WINNING the suit.

            Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that if this nurse sues immunity will not apply and she will win. And therein lies the reason why your trucker likely will not win. To lose immunity an officer must do something that is CLEARLY illegal. It is NOT clearly illegal to chase someone in a car. Even the Utah Supreme Court recognized this simple truism in the Torrie case that you rely on. Moreover, as the Utah Supreme Court said in Torrie, establishing a duty is nowhere near the same thing as establishing breach and proximate cause. Of course, the Utah Supreme Court didn’t really address the immunity issue (as Utah’s governmental immunity is apparently exceedingly weak — Utah has chosen to waive immunity in a lot of cases). The case was up on one narrow issue — whether police officers owed a duty to the person they were chasing. Here, you might want to read the whole opinion.

            http://cases.justia.com/utah/supreme-court/20120500.pdf?ts=1396150914

            You might also want to note that the Court upheld summary judgment for the deputy’s department.

            Also, you might want to think about the fact that this is a 2013 opinion reversing summary judgment, yet there are no news articles on what the outcome of the case was. Had the Torries won, I would expect to be able to find a lot of news stories about the outcome of the trial. Yet there is…silence. Exactly what happens when the good guys win. I don’t think too many juries would want to hold a deputy liable for a ONE MINUTE pursuit in which a suicidal teen lost control of the vehicle he stole from his parents.

          • bacchys

            Immunity prevents you from being sued. Upheld, it’s a complete defense against being sued. It means that even if the plaintiff is right, he can’t get his remedy. Prosecutors, for example, have absolute immunity for anything functionally prosecutorial. Which means you aren’t even going to get in the courthouse door without proving what you’re suing them for *isn’t* for a prosecutorial function, such as determining what charges to bring against a defendant or the arguments made in court. (Imbler v. Pachman).
            Immunity is the freedom from the consequences of a suit and the burden of defending against it.
            Utah having sovereign immunity and waiving is certainly relevant. They likely have waived it in these kinds of cases under whatever version of a tort claims act they have, and it may not come into play if he files a Federal claim pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment- though that would be harder to win, I think, in these circumstances. If he did file- and regardless of the political disposition of officials involved, they’re more likely to settle before it ever gets to trial. If, however, they had the results of a blood test that showed he was impaired it would mitigate their liability, at least in theory, and reduce the size of any settlement or award.
            Yes, I can well believe a jury- even in conservative Utah- would side with an innocent third party badly injured as a result of a police chase. They wouldn’t be holding a deputy or officer liable: they’d be dunning the state for his medical bills and livelihood.
            If you’re not seeing news stories on the outcome of the Torries’s case it probably ended in a settlement that got an inch or two in the back page of a newspaper. If either side prevailed in a trial it would be bigger news.
            While all this is interesting, it’s almost beside the point. As stupid as you may think this reason is for their actions, it remains less stupid than any other excuse offered by them or any other apologist for their actions. They weren’t going to “help’ him in some way by forcibly drawing blood. They weren’t going to find anything useful to their investigation, and it certainly wouldn’t close any loops. It’s not being thorough, either. This blood draw had zero evidentiary value in these circumstances.

          • dhd123

            Any motion to dismiss would also include the body cam footage from the plaintiff, which I believe will be enough evidence to get a judge to deny the motion to dismiss, allowing any lawsuit to go forward.

          • renegadesix

            Uh, no, it wouldn’t. A motion to dismiss is limited by the facts pled within the “four corners” of the complaint. Perhaps you meant a motion for summary judgment?

          • Barry

            The ridiculous anti-police extremists vs. the (equally ridiculous) police-can-do-no-wrong crowd was bad enough.

            I guess it was only a matter of time before someone got even more ridiculous and made it a Liberals vs. Conservatives issue.

          • renegadesix

            Settling when a city shouldn’t settle IS oftentimes a liberals vs. conservatives issue. Liberal politicians are far more likely (and happy) to handover taxpayers money to buy votes than conservatives.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            Cop breaks into your house rapes your wife & daughter. A liberal politician will prosecute that cop a Conservative will blame your wife & daughter for resisting arrest.

          • renegadesix

            Congratulations on winning the “Most Asinine Post of the Day” award.

          • Barry

            Case in point.

            The idea that one group of POLITICIANS will do more for votes than another group of POLITICIANS is … ridiculous.

            Politics aside, when it comes to lawsuits, the decision to settle is quite often the fiscally conservative choice as long, drawn out court battles become quite expensive.

          • renegadesix

            I didn’t say they would do more. The difference is methodology. Conservatives attempt to get votes through policy and morality. Liberals use “freebies” from tax dollars.

            I agree that often it does make more financial sense to settle — but that is usually in the private insurance context. Large cities are generally self-insured and have in-house legal staff to handle these lawsuits. As a result, their litigation costs are relatively low. The most expensive part of any lawsuit is the legal fees. In the in-house scenario you are already paying the lawyers a salary so the only thing you have are costs (deposition transcripts, expert fees (if you even use them), etc.).

            The point is that it will rarely cost the millions of dollars we are seeing in the more high profile settlements to fully litigate a case through summary judgment and/or interlocutory appeals.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            Anyone who sides with the nurse is an “anti-police extremist” according to this site. Maybe Blue Lives matter should have chose more wisely who they support It’s cops like this pone that created Black Lives Matter. we ALL should hate cops like this & DEMAND cops like this never work again.

          • Barry

            To be fair, this article does mostly side with the nurse. It just doesn’t go far enough to condemn the actions of the detective and his Lieutenant.

            The author seems to be grasping at straws for a way the detective can be less than 100% wrong. My guess is that Snarky Cop tempered his opinion for fear of being shunned by the “police-can-do-no-wrong” faction of the law enforcement community.

            This is one of those rare instances where the facts are clear. 19 minutes of video coupled with reporting from multiple sources leaves no doubt. Sometimes, there is no defense.

            As I’ve commented elsewhere, the law enforcement community should be responding more harshly to this incident than the public rather than allowing it to feed into the anti-police hysteria.

          • Nick Barone

            You truly are a sickening individual. Cities that back their officers and refuse to settle…. May I remind you that the CITIZENS of any city, town or municipality are the ones who are to be “backed.” Now we know that doesn’t happen because, much like a cop, it’s rare for an entrenched politician to be shown the door. Exhibit A: Marion Berry.

          • renegadesix

            Yes, back their officers and refuse to settle when warranted. You do realize you are on the wrong website for hating cops, right?

          • Nick Barone

            Oh, gee whiz, I better not go to the KKK website then and tell them they’re racists. I don’t give a fuck what website I’m on and I don’t care if you’re the blood sucking, badge licking lawyer you appear to be. You earn your living by defending brutality, and perhaps, given your attitude, enjoying it vicariously. Therefore, your opinions don’t matter and frankly neither do you.

          • renegadesix

            Cops = KKK. Well done, bonehead. You just made yourself irrelevant.

          • Melissa Davis

            This trucker deserves compensation, as he wont be able to work for a long time (if ever?), his injuries are horribly painful, and he’ll be disfigured. His injuries were the direct result of a high speed police chase. Oh, and this guy is also a cop. I read in one article (as a nurse im a little obsessed, ive read alll the articles) that the request for blood came not from SLPD, but from a different police department?

          • Dylan Zwick

            Slim TO none. 😉

    • Cathy Rule

      I read the trucker who was burned was a reserve officer who was a trucker on the side because their pay is so low. I also read this nurse had a beef with police. I’m a nurse…I didn’t trust HER from the very beginning and still don’t. Something’s fishy. She is a drama queen and the video you see is edited by HER ATTORNEY

      • Denise Painter

        The full video – actually several videos from several points of view – are on YouTube for anyone to see. I particularly like the part where Lt. Payne tells Nurse Wubble that at HIS second job driving an ambulance, in the future he’s only going to bring indigent patients to this ER, he’ll take the “good” patients elsewhere. EVEN HIS PARTNER KNEW HE WAS IN THE WRONG AND TRIED TO STOP HIM. Not very hard of course, because that’s seen as undercutting your partner and we can’t have that, not even for the good old Constitution. Speaking of Nurse Wubble and her police issues, I have also seen reports that Lt. Payne had had a couple of other incidents at this same hospital where he had to be removed from a patient’s room in the past. So you take your picks as to which rumors you want to believe. I’m sticking to the facts I’ve seen in the video for now. I’m sure investigations by both the hospital and the police department will eventually be released.

      • Tonya Weirum Henson

        Wow!….Drama queen? I think not, the officer was out of line from the beginning and aggressive. I am married to LE, and this appalled and embarrassed him. I’m also a nurse and the FULL video is available online. The video is from the officers body cams, not the nurse. Perhaps you don’t mind possibly losing your license and job, or facing disciplinary action from the state board. Also, if you actually paid attention to the video, she was on the phone with the hospital administrator, following his directions.

      • Christina Brearley

        Where did you read that? It seems like you’re just spreading lies.

      • Mike M

        Nice to see someone who proudly admits their bias and conspiracy theories will take precedence over the facts of a story. Yes, facts. If something is “fishy” Cathy, please state it. Otherwise sit down with your baseless victim blaming.

        Want to know what’s fishy? Why were the police so desperate to get a blood draw from the *victim* of an accident caused by one of their high speed chases? Maybe to see if there’s any marijuana or other substance they can use to deflect blame from putting this man in a coma? Nah, can’t be right? Police are angels! God bless these brave soldiers…. errr, I mean peace officers.

      • tanya morris

        I’m a charge nurse in a busy ER. If you are a nurse you know that patient advocacy is at the heart of caring for our patients. You should also brush up on HIPAA and Birchfield v North Dakota.

    • CFitz77

      You nailed it.

    • David Maggard

      This was only explanation I could come up w/, they were worried he or his family might sue the police and they were hoping to find something to protect them.

      • renegadesix

        Try the cops were afraid he might die and wanted to preserve the evidence. That’s usually the reason for a blood draw in these circumstances.

        • bacchys

          Evidence of what? If there was any evidentiary value in his blood for them they would have been able to secure a warrant in less time than they took to try and bully the hospital into allowing it.

          There’s also likely been a tox screen done by the hospital they could have subpoenaed later if there was an actual valid reason to do so. There was no need to try and force this.

          • renegadesix

            What if he died before the hospital did the blood draw? You can’t subpoena later what they didn’t do.

            Look, I agree that this shouldn’t have been forced. My only point here is that this whole “they only did it because they were trying to save themselves from the trucker’s lawsuit” theory is BS. There are valid reasons for wanting the blood that have nothing to do with self-serving motives. I doubt that either of these officers was even thinking about a lawsuit at the time.

          • ezemail

            You haven’t named a valid reason for them to get the blood only that they want it because he might die which doesn’t cut it. Bottom line if the patient is not a suspect or under arrest the cops have no good reason to need the blood, and definitely have no right to it.

          • renegadesix

            Never said they had a right to it. I’m just telling you another motive – evidence preservation.

          • skydo frog

            The autopsy will do that, blood work, as well.

          • renegadesix

            Guess what? They latest on this story is that the cops stopped pushing the issue once they were told the blood was drawn. Wonder why they didn’t tell him that to start with?

          • Sheep O’Doom

            FEDERAL LAW FORBIDS IT.

          • renegadesix

            Which federal law?

          • Sean L. Allen

            Now you´re just being OBTUSE.

          • renegadesix

            Now you’re just projecting.

          • avei

            The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. Section 1320d-6 and 45 CFR 164.512. Violation is a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and $250,000 fine. The detective was an ambulance driver. As such he is a covered entity in the performance of his ambulance driving job and is required to be HIPAA trained. Therefore he cannot claim ignorance of the law. He knew or should have jolly well known that he was demanding a covered entity to disclose or permit the disclosure of PHI in violation of the law by virtue of his mandatory HIPAA training in his capacity as an ambulance driver.

            Or are you saying he switches off his ambulance training when he switches jobs?

          • renegadesix

            Show me in there where it specifically prohibits a nurse from revealing a blood draw was done (with no other information provided). Then explain to me why, if you are right, the hospital isn’t in violation of HIPAA for later telling the officers that a blood draw had been done.

          • avei

            If, in fact she did tell the officers a blood draw had been done, she did violate HIPAA. Her defense would be that she was under extreme duress as the video record would appear to corroborate.

          • avei

            The Law: 45 CFR 160.103, Definitions in pertinent part.
            Health care means care, services, or supplies related to the health of an individual. Health care includes, but is not limited to, the following:
            (1) Preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care, and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure with respect to the physical or mental condition, or functional status, of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body;

            Health information means any information, including genetic information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that:
            (1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and
            (2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual;

            Protected health information means individually identifiable health information:
            (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, that is:
            (i) Transmitted by electronic media;
            (ii) Maintained in electronic media; or
            (iii) Transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.
            Paragraph (2) described records held under the Educational Privacy Rights Act and permits release for people who died more than 50 years ago.

            Since police asked for specific information about a specific patient, this is personally identified health information garnered in the course of providing health care to an individual. The specific information he might have requested was, “Was a blood specimen available?”

            Since this information was created by a health care provider and did relate to the past, present or future physical condition of an individual and the provision of health care to that individual, this is personally identifiable health information which is protected. It does not matter if if the information only exists in the mind of the ordering physician, written on scraps of paper or logged in an electronic medical record. It is information which was gained in the course of medical care by a physician. As such a health care provider may not disclose it except in extremely limited circumstances: Consent, warrant, or detailed written administrative request. Pretty much what the nurse told the Detective on camera.

          • Jerry Mitchell

            The Supreme Court ruled in a 7-1 opinion that states may not prosecute suspected drunk drivers for refusing warrantless blood draws. States can, however, require warrantless breath tests incident to an arrest. Here is the Federal Lay that you requested with the full opinion of SCOTUS….
            SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
            Syllabus
            BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA
            CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
            No. 14–1468. Argued April 20, 2016—Decided June 23, 2016*

            https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf

          • VaHam

            Lt. Tracy said he had been doing this for 22 years and he is just now finding out how the process works? Det. Payne is a trained Phlebotomist and his other job is working for http://goldcross.org ambulance service so he is no stranger to an ER. The big question to me is if they have been doing this type police work for many years and are unaware of the routine tox screen on an unconscious patient, that would imply they never have obtained warrants to get blood results, after the fact or simply relied on bullying to get what they desired in the past. Det Payne did say he had run into similar things in the past but that they had never gone this far. Being a reasonable person I would take that to mean others before had yielded to the illegal order. All the cases they have worked on should be reviewed IMHO 🙂

          • renegadesix

            I feel fairly confident that if there were problems in the past their lawyers would have picked up on it. One of the most lasting lessons a cop learns is to lose a case because he screwed up and gets barbecued on the stand because of it.

          • VaHam

            Or they just never had someone with guts and conviction of this nurse who would not cave in to their bullying, as I suspect others had. Realize that until 2016 police abused the implied consent provisions all the time by taking blood when they had no probable cause which is why 2106 SCOTUS Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425. But in the case of a victim’s rights under the 4th amendment I will turn the question around on your legal eagle mind. What gives the police the right to perform a search for controlled substance on a victim at all under any circumstances?

          • renegadesix

            Easy. To refute a later claim by a criminal defendant that the accident was the fault of the victim because the victim was intoxicated.

          • VaHam

            I can claim your a legal genius, but that does not make it true in the absence of proof. Would you as attorney advise a victim you were representing to voluntarily submit to testing or not?

          • renegadesix

            It would depend on the circumstances. If the client was absolutely sure he had not taken any controlled substance or alcohol and there were allegations that he had, I might advise taking the test. Otherwise, you are stuck at trial with someone claiming that your client drank a gallon of vodka and you have no proof other than your client’s word that he did not.

          • Sean L. Allen

            You should probably stop making assumptions at this point…lol

            When will these commenting cops (or fanboys…hell who knows) who actually have standards start learning that all cops don´t operate how you operate…jeez.

          • renegadesix

            Its called “experience” not “assumptions”, keyboard warrior. As for your other point, my guess is that they will stop right about the time you internet experts on policing (who haven’t spent a day on the streets with a badge and a gun) stop trying to tell people how to do a job you lack the courage to do yourself.

          • Don Adkins
          • renegadesix

            Call one of the ones at the top the next time someone is breaking into your house.

          • medbob

            This was not their first time bullying a subject. While in some cases they might get away with it, I would call on all Oathkeepers to do whatever is necessary to weed out these non-hackers. You are responsible for the shine on your badge, and when anyone poops on their badge in this manner, they need to be directed to another line of work.

          • VaHam

            The questions is by what right they attempted to take a blood sample at all?

          • renegadesix

            That’s YOUR question because you hate cops. My question is why didn’t the nurse defuse this situation by simply saying, “we have already drawn blood”?

            You want to talk about people with egos? Try to argue with a nurse some time.

          • VaHam

            Well my brother and sister in law would be unhappy to hear I hate them 🙂 I argue in favor of police incessantly when I feel they are wronged but I happen to believe that we do a grave disservice to try and justify blant cases where they acted way out of line. That effects the notion that the blue line will do anything to protect it’s own no matter what they have done. That supporting of bad apples, fans the fuel of BLM and real cop haters everywhere. So are you a nurse hater? 🙂

          • renegadesix

            Still not going to answer the question, are you? Why didn’t the nurse defuse the situation by telling them the blood had been drawn already?

            And yes, I am well aware that you cop haters often trot out the old canard of “my ____ is a cop, so I have to love them.” Well, sorry, Mr. Anonymous Internet Guy bashing the police, I am just not going to take your word for it.

            Finally, and for about the millionth time, I am not defending what the officer did here. I am simply responding to the clearly false allegations that these officers were “corrupt”, and “evil.” Which, incidentally, are what cop haters say all cops are. Funny how someone who loves cops is using the tired old schtick of the cop haters to bash some guys who just made a mistake.

          • VaHam

            First you neglected to answer my question. ARE YOU A NURSE HATER? Aren’t police trained to defuse a situation? Why didn’t the officers ask if it had already been done until after after applying handcuffs and throwing the nurse into a car? In fact wouldn’t you think that would be the first question of the officer before demanding to draw blood again? It is pretty clear here why not; because they knew they could not obtain a warrant to get the test results do to lack of probable cause.

            You have been defending the officers here very strongly as I suspect most can see. I don’t know what tired old schtick you refer to but; I really don’t care what you think anyway. I am aware of the ignorant notion that anyone who criticises a particular of where they feel police have acted badly is labeled a cop hater. This kind of stinking thinking makes a bad name for police and their supporters.

          • renegadesix

            Aren’t nurse’s trained to defuse combative patients? Why are you giving her a pass on not providing the five little words that stop this from happening? Why is it up to the officers to ask the “right” question, when the “right” response is obvious? Is the nurse not a trained professional as well?

          • VaHam

            Is she under some oath to educate police? Are they responsible for know the law? I believe I already told you reasons she may not have thought to educate them elsewhere go look up that post. Asked and answered. 🙂

          • Don Adkins
          • renegadesix

            Remove the badge an replace it with a prison number and we have your problem.

          • avei

            Because it is against the law. She couldn’t answer that question as she is a covered entity under HIPAA, she explained that to him and he refused to listen.

          • renegadesix

            Again, point out specifically where in HIPAA telling officers that a blood draw had been done qualifies as protected health information. Moreover, HIPAA specifically authorizes providers to give protected information to LEOs on victims of crime (like this trucker was) when they are unable to respond.

            https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdf

          • avei

            Asked and answered. An old mentor of mine, now a long retired Article III Judge once told me…never wrestle with a pig. You only get covered in mud and the pig loves it. I will give it one last try.

            What you say is not true.

            Your cited pamphlet contains a disclaimer as has been explained to you. It is not a cite-able authority. Let’s take it one piece at a time, shall we?
            Paragraph 2: Who must comply?
            Hospitals, physicians and their employees, contractors and business associates.

            Police? Nope, they’re not a covered entity by the privacy rule. They get their hands on PHI, they can do whatever they want with it.

            What does your non-authoritative pamphlet actually say? I’ll paraphrase for bevity.
            It says that PHI may be disclosed to law enforcement where: a duty to warn exists (long pre-dates HIPAA in the US),
            legally required reports (ie GSW), crimes in progress including crimes
            where a death resulted, warrants, court orders and legal administrative
            requests, helping find a fugitive. None of these applied to the case at hand. Not a single one.

            How about bullet point #8 of Paragraph 3?

            It says To respond to a request for PHI about an adult victim of a crime when the victim agrees or IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES when the victim is unable to agree. So the single question is: What are those limited circumstances described in your brochure?

            Your officer wanted to obtain blood, and it has been asserted here that the purpose was to assure there was no improper substance in his blood for the speculative reasons that it would “prove his innocence.”

            Counselor/Officer, in the United States, citizens don’t have to do that. They are innocent until the state can PROVE they are guilty. Police are simply not allowed to go fishing. This victim can in no way be helped by the fishing expedition, he can only be harmed. Therefore, the limited circumstances, which are not described in your pamphlet do not exist. HIPAA exists to protect patient’s rights and privacy.

            I have cited for you at your request the specification of “limited circumstance” in 45 CFR 164.512(f)(3) elsewhere in this thread, which I now quote verbatim, and certainly not “selectively.”

            “(ii) The covered entity is unable to obtain the individual’s agreement because of incapacity or other emergency circumstance, provided that:

            (A) The law enforcement official represents that such information is needed to determine whether a violation of law by a person other than the victim has occurred, and such information is not intended to be used against the victim;

            (B) The law enforcement official represents that immediate law enforcement activity that depends upon the disclosure would be materially and adversely affected by waiting until the individual is able to agree to the disclosure; and

            (C) The disclosure is in the best interests of the individual as determined by the covered entity, in the exercise of professional judgment.”

            Did the officers meet this test in this case?
            (ii) is clearly met. The patient could not consent.
            For (A), it was clear to all contemporaneously that the victim was injured by a person involved in felony fleeing/eluding. There is no possible way the test of such information was needed to determine whether a violation of the law by a person other than the victim has occurred.

            That there was a crime is clear from all available evidence. The information requested was not needed. The -police themselves were eyewitnesses to the crime. This test fails.

            For (B), if test (A) fails, it is difficult to see how immediate law enforcement activity could be compromised: The suspect was dead, his actions and the actions of police immediately prior to the victim likely blowing a tire in a high speed action and losing control of his vehicle striking the victim’s vehicle which was traveling in the opposite direction, in the right lane, absent other information, at the speed limit. The police already have all the information they needed to close the case.

            That leaves (C). Was the disclosure in the best interest of the victim? The law gives the covered entity sole authority to make this determination, stating specifically, “. . . as determined by the covered entity. . .” The police told the covered entity that they wanted the information to protect the victim. This lacks credibility on its face. The covered entity made a determination based on its policy that said disclosure was not in the best interest of the victim and politely declined.

            End of story. The only option is the warrant/court order. I have now quoted chapter and verse of the actual law along with my analysis. I am headed for the showers and leaving the mud. Bye.

          • Sean L. Allen

            Wonder why common sense didn´t tell you, (Or the cop that is supposed to be a trained phlebotomist) that they do tox screens for incoming patients that are UNCONSCIOUS.

          • renegadesix

            Once again, explain why they didn’t tell the cop that until AFTER the altercation with the nurse. You’re pretty pathetic at cheerleading. How about you try some original thought?

          • Matt McDonald

            buddy, why do you keep calling it an altercation? When you see a big man angrily grab a hold of a woman and jerk her around like, confine her against her will and transport her to another place, you call it assault and kidnapping, unless it’s with lawful authority. The officer here did not have authority to arrest her, so it’s assault. What’s even more shameful, is that several law enforcement officers witnessed the attack and refused to act.

          • renegadesix

            Seriously, semantics games now? Well gee, skippy, if you want to get technical it isn’t an assault either. It is either “battery” or “excessive force.”

            I use “altercation” because what I am talking about involves more than just the hands on part of the incident. I am including the verbal sparring that went on as well, because the entire thing could have been avoided if this nurse would have just said, “we already did a blood draw.”

          • avei

            Which, if she said it would have been a violation of HIPAA, as she is a covered entity and the officer had already admitted he did not meet the law enforcement exceptions to HIPAA.

            So it is proper for a law enforcement officer to advocate breaking the law to avoid an altercation leading to battery? This is not semantic sparring. Improper release of PHI results in massive fines against both the covered entity and the individual. The feds take it very seriously.

          • renegadesix

            It wouldn’t have been a violation even if it had been protected.

            “A HIPAA covered entity also may disclose PHI to law enforcement without the individual’s signed HIPAA authorization in certain incidents, including:

            . . .

            To respond to a request for PHI about an adult victim of a crime when the victim agrees (or in limited circumstances if the individual is unable to agree).”

            https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdf

          • avei

            The actual law gives deference to the clinical judgement of the covered entity. Please read the law, and not an HHS bureaucrat’s pamphlet. The disclaimer on the two page pamphlet clearly advises that this document does not include all the requirements found in the Privacy Rule. In the judgement of the covered entity [nurse] who presumably would have been shown the attestation, if there was one, PHI was not available to this officer. It left him with one, and only one means of obtaining what he wanted, as was clearly and repeatedly explained to him verbally and in writing. Go get a warrant from a judge. If it were obtainable, it could have been had in the time the detective wasted. But, as we heard, the detective appeared to have expressed the opinion that there was no probable cause.

          • VaHam

            Why didn’t the police ask if blood had been drawn already? I suspect because they already knew that they had no probable cause to get a warrant for the results. I do note that Lt. Tracy made lots of talk to the effect of if we had only known blood had already been drawn none of this would have happened was nothing more than cover. Not only did he brow beat the nurse and make those claims he went to the back of the car to discuss the situation and told the officer wearing the body camera to leave it on while he went thru the speal about if we only knew blood had been drawn. Lt. Tracy touted his 22 years of experience and he was the watch commander of the blood draw unit and he never thought to ask that question?

          • renegadesix

            Answer my question, why didn’t the hospital tell them that ahead of time? Why didn’t she? Seriously, in any normal interaction when someone comes to you to do a thing you have already done, don’t you tell them you’ve done it already?

          • avei

            The hospital didn’t tell them that ahead of time because it is against the law. Both the hospital and the nurse are covered entities under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

            HIPAA does not permit the hospital to say anything about a patient to anybody (Protected Health Information PHI) except those directly involved in the patient’s medical care, unless there is consent. In the event a patient is unable to give consent, a documented medical power of attorney, and where there is no POA present, a gardian ad litem. Conveying protected health information, including medical procedures does require consent and violating HIPAA is a serious matter.

            Law enforcement exceptions are pretty much limited to the circumstances Nurse Wubbel explained to the detective. These are covered in detail in 45 CFR 164.512(f)(1). You need consent, and if there is no consent, the covered entity (hospital) can’t tell you anything. Then you need a warrant or permission, he and his lieutenant didn’t have permission, and with the Supreme Court Decision in North Dakota and Minnesota, a warrant was required.

            It’s really that simple. Tell the detective about a patient’s private medical procedure and risk a bank breaking fine, or ask him politely to get his warrant, which, if he had reasonable articulable cause, I’m sure any judge in Utah would have been happy to issue. Warrant in hand, HIPAA is served, and the hospital can speak freely, but not one word without it.

          • renegadesix
          • avei

            Counselor, as an attorney you know well that a brief synopsis is no substitute for being trained in the law and its actual operation. That’s why HIPAA training is mandated by many institutions. As law enforcement is not a covered entity, the synopsis is informative, but not governing. The pamphlet you cite in the right, lower corner as much as states this. Now go and read the actual laws and the regulations arising from them.

          • renegadesix

            I KNOW the law. The synopsis is published by the governmental agency charged with interpretting and enforcing it. Their interpretation does NOT match your argument or your selective quoting of a very long statute.

          • avei

            No. I don’t think you do. You rely on a pamphlet and not the law.

            Government agencies publish lots of things that they are charged with interpreting and enforcing. I have not selectively quoted a very long statute, I have quoted the pertinent parts and you are free to quote the parts that you think rebut my reading, or the associated case law. Instead you find a pamphlet and claim it as authority. It doesn’t work that way and you know it. Why don’t you cite the actual authorities and use them in rebuttal? The laws are published, the case law is available. You don’t need the University of [—] Law Library to find it.

            I get it. You do not like the law. You do not like the fact that this law does not permit the police to demand and obtain what they want when they want it. Your dislike of the law, does not relieve you or anyone else of the responsibility of following it. Re-read the disclaimer. A synopsis is just that: a brief statement or general survey. (Oxford English Dictionary).

            The fact is, the law and the constitution of this country do not permit the government or its agents to act based on desires. As you are no doubt aware, the SLPD review agencies have sustained the allegations against the two officers, and affirmed the hospital’s policy.

            If you think that government agencies charged with interpreting and enforcing the laws write flawless brochures, I need only point as far as the Internal Revenue Service which has freely admitted that the basic instructions for filling out your 1040 are not governing, and even if you follow them to the letter, you may be found guilty of one or another tax violation in an audit, even though you specifically relied upon the IRS instructions on how to fill out their very complex forms.

          • VaHam

            No

          • renegadesix

            You stand revealed as a cop hater.

          • VaHam

            NO 🙂

          • Jerry Mitchell

            Why should they have to tell the cop, why does the cop not know that blood is drawn on ALL unconscious patients taken to an ER, It is not the hospital’s job to make an officer aware of that, seems like everybody in America knows they do a blood draw upon entrance except you and the thug that assaulted a female nurse….

          • Terri Lamkin

            Because according to Payne a prior draw would not have been acceptable, he was very explicit…. he was leaving with “either a vial of blood or a body in tow”…. why would she mention it, it wouldn’t satisfy Payne

          • medbob

            Should I tell you that water is wet? How many traumas has this cop seen? Are you trying to tell me that this was his first time at the rodeo? No, the exigent circumstance was that they wanted to get the task done quickly because they knew that they did not have legal authority for it. It does not make sense. Even my teenager knows that when a car wreck comes in they draw a bunch of blood.
            If they don’t have the intellectual capacity to make that connection, what right do they have to attach the label “Detective” to their names at all?

          • renegadesix

            Then how do you explain the fact that, as is now being reported, when the altercation with the nurse began the ER HAD NOT DRAWN BLOOD YET?

          • VaHam

            Can you provide a link to that report please?

          • medbob

            I don’t know where you heard that, but it makes no sense. The situation was that the patient had been moved to the burn ward, and in the conversations with the detective, the nurse determined that he was angry, and she moved the discussion to the ED where she felt safer with more people around. This is per her direct word on… The Today show, I think.

          • renegadesix

            None of which counters the reports that the blood had not been draw yet. In fact, after the cops were told that blood had been drawn by the hospital, they let the nurse go. Had they been told that at the very beginning none of this would have happened. The nurse and the hospital bear some of the responsibility for this by not telling the officers that blood had been drawn (or that they were about to draw blood) before it got out of hand.

          • bacchys

            No such reports exist. They had already drawn blood. Lt. Tracy, on Payne’s bodycam, even says that had he known they had already drawn blood the whole incident would have gone down differently.

          • renegadesix

            And again, this begs the question, WHY DIDN’T SHE TELL HIM?

          • bacchys

            She may have before the camera views we have click on. After all, she told him that the policy was an agreement between the police department and the hospital- in other words, it was ALSO the police policy, not just hospital policy- and he didn’t listen to that.

            He doesn’t seem to have asked, either. Given he’s a paramedic and the police phlebotomist, shouldn’t he have known to at least ask if they had?

            He tells another officer they don’t have PC to get a warrant or place the man under arrest. That should have given him pause as to what legal authorities he had in that situation, regardless of what his watch commander was telling him.

          • renegadesix

            She didn’t, and we know she didn’t. She would have said so if she had in all the interviews she has given since.

          • bacchys

            Nonsense. It’s not relevant. It doesn’t matter to the issues with her wrongful arrest. Whether she told them or not- or even whether it was done or not- is completely irrelevant. There’s no reason for that to have come up in the interviews, and the fact it hasn’t doesn’t mean the police weren’t told before the period captured by the body cams.

            Tracy doesn’t say when he was told or by whom. You’re drawing conclusions based on little to no evidence.

            The police had no legal authority to demand the blood draw, and no legal authority to arrest her for following the law. The nurse is not at fault in this at all, however much you try to pretend otherwise.

          • medbob

            What reports? I cannot counter what I cannot evaluate. That report makes no sense in relation to the testimony of the nurse on CNN where she relates the larger timeline around the videos. She states that she had the encounter with Payne on the ward and that her training in working with difficult patients informed her that his anger was clouding his judgement. She moved to the ER for her safety as there were many more people there. This is documented at 2:55 in this video.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GRrtLLDikM

          • renegadesix

            That isn’t testimony…it isn’t under oath. She is taking advantage of the fact that she can talk while the officers cannot.

          • medbob

            So, you question her relating of the timeline? She is the victim here against police who refused to listen to reason and reasoned arguments. Cops who considered their capabilities before considering their oaths. Cops who completely ignored facts that were placed before them. It sounds a lot like I am speaking to a cop who suffers from the same flaw.

          • renegadesix

            No, I question your calling something testimony that isn’t testimony. If it isn’t under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury it isn’t testimony. Talking to a reporter on CNN is not testimony.

            Those cops followed their own policy which differed from the hospital policy. How do you explain the fact that the department has now changed its policy to match the hospital policy because of this incident?

          • medbob

            Whatever policy was in place was apparently wrong if it was modified.
            As for testimony, I was using that term as used in common conversation, not in legal terms. Perhaps “telling her story” would be more accurate. You would still need to use common sense applied to known facts to assail her account.

          • renegadesix

            I am not “assailing” her account of the timeline. I do take issue with her speculation as to what was in another person’s mind. Moreover, I think she is deflecting from what should be the obvious question to ask her here: “if you knew they wanted blood drawn for evidence, and you knew blood had already been drawn, why didn’t you tell them?”

            That’s the only remaining unanswered question in this case.

          • medbob

            My point was merely parsing out the timeline, not to deal with motivation. I think it is apparent that she had good reason to fear for her physical security. A cop who does not respect the need to obtain a warrant is far out of line.
            As far as other specimens, they fall into the same category as a new draw. They would have to be obtained under a Warrant. Those specimens also would not have a CoC attached.

          • Jerry Mitchell

            And he was also their “trained phlebotomist” so I also find the fact that he “did not know” this to be vewwy vewwy stwange,,,,

          • skydo frog

            Ego – The downfall of a police officer.

          • renegadesix

            Speculation, the downfall of the internet poster.

          • skydo frog

            I work in Insurance. I used to handle the Chicago Police disability program. Ego gets more police officers in trouble than you might imagine. In this case, he didn’t like some nurse telling him, no!

            The best Police Officer I have ever met, Frank Fuda. He was a field training officer. You couldn’t get him mad.

          • Jerry Mitchell

            I wonder why a “trained phlebotomist” or any cop for that matter ,not know that EVERY unconscious patient taken into a trauma E.R. will almost immediately have their blood drawn so the Physicians know if they have something in their system that may conflict with any meds the Physicians may give them, and this happens to EVERY UNCONSCIOUS PATIENT taken into a trauma E.R. in America….

          • Sheep O’Doom

            No crime the victim was not under arrest nor was there probable cause for him to be under arrest. HOWEVER the University cops DID have justifiable cause to detain AND ARREST officer porkchop.

          • renegadesix

            And again, cop hater, we do get evidence from victims.

          • VaHam

            Do you compel evidence from victims persons, houses, papers, and effects without a warrant?

          • renegadesix

            Not any more, but I have. I arrested a woman one night for domestic violence, and in stereotypical fashion, she said, “I ain’t going to jail alone, he’s got weed”, and sure enough there it was in plain view. Seized the evidence right off the victim of my domestic violence arrest. Its called the plain view exception.

          • VaHam

            Evidence of exactly what crime (of the victim) would the drawing of the victim’s blood forced in this case? The thing that most of the public sees is exactly what SCOTUS saw in it’s 2016 ruling (Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425). Simple implied consent is not sufficient to violate the 4th amendment rights of an individual; there must be probable cause of some unlawful act.

            There is a good question posed by the person wearing the body cam between 0:52-0:58 in the video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsAil12U1cc . He asks Det Payne “Why don’t we just go get a search warrant” to which it sounds to me like Det. Payne replies “They don’t have anything to talk about….we’ve already discussed that”. Can anyone explain that it exchange in any way other than Det. Payne and someone else, presumably the watch commander Lt. Tracy, had discussed getting a warrant and knew they didn’t have any probable cause to obtain a warrant?

          • renegadesix

            I have replied to this elsewhere. Do your part to keep down spam.

          • VaHam

            Yes and to insist that (2016 SCOTUS Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425) does not apply because the unconscious man was the victim and not a suspect is laughable. Do you seriously think that the rights of a victim would be less than those of a suspect. I’d love to hear you argue that in front of a judge 🙂 A vision of Danny DeVito in a purple tux come to mind 🙂

          • renegadesix

            Where did you get your law degree from again? It isn’t a question of rights, it is a question of REASONABLENESS under a particular fact situation. You probably don’t realize it, but McNeely was a 5-4 decision and the make up of the Court has changed. I could very easily see a 5-4 split going back the other way when the reason for the governmental intrusion was to obtain evidence to help prosecute the person who hurt the victim.

          • VaHam

            So now your hoping for a new SCOTUS to improve your STANCE? 🙂 REASONABLENESS requires that you follow the Constitution including the 4th amendment’s requirement for warrants. Are you really arguing that the rights of an innocent victim are greater than those of a suspect?

            Excerpt from McNeely:

            “In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), this
            Court upheld a warrantless blood test of an individual
            arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol because
            the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was
            confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary
            to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened
            the destruction of evidence.” Id., at 770 (internal
            quotation marks omitted). 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. “

          • renegadesix

            LOL, the 4th Amendment does NOT require warrants! It requires only that warrants be issued with specificity and based upon probable cause. Why do you think there are exceptions for exigent circumstances? If the 4th Amendment absolutely required a warrant, no such exigencies would be possible. On view warrantless arrests would not be possible.

            “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

            Tell me in there EXACTLY where it says “warrants are required.”

            As for your quote, are you aware that one of the justices in that majority is no longer on the Court (Scalia)? Like it or not, when the personnel on the Court changes, all too often so too does the law.

          • VaHam

            Warrants are generally under the protection of privacy affirmed in the 4th. Are there exceptions? Yes there are a few however recent SCOTUS decisions have clarified that the drawing of blood for the purpose of a tox screen is not one of them. Your argument that because this was the victim and not the subject is ridiculous. Yes the 4th must be viewed with the concept of reasonableness and the courts have basically two tests to determine this:
            1) Did the person subjectively expect the place or thing to be private? I.e., did they actually feel that the place or thing would remain private?
            2) Was that expectation objectively reasonable? I.e., would society as a whole agree that the place or thing should remain private?

            It really doesn’t matter at all whether a future court could potentially change their minds, what is important in this case is what the law is today. There are a great number of 5-4 decisions which could change our very way of life but they are not relevant here.

          • renegadesix

            Sigh. Please, either go to law school or stop trying to practice law with your limited undrestanding of one case. The “test” you cite is NOT for whether a seizure is lawful, but whether a person has an expectation of privacy which is but one part of the overall test.

            You know, it is funny that you put the entirety of your belief that a blood draw absent a warrant or consent is unconstitutional in this circumstance based soley on the McNeely decision. Have you even read the entire opinion? I highly suggest you do so before you comment further. In McNeely, the VERY limited question was whether a per se rule was constitutionally acceptable — that is, whether the dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream made it acceptable IN EVERY CASE to get blood without a warrant. While it is true that the Supreme Court declined to accept such a blanket proposition, the majority opinion concluded with this:

            “Because this case was argued on the broad proposition that drunk-driving cases present a per se exigency, the arguments and the record do not provide the Court with an adequate analytic framework for a detailed discussion of all the relevant factors that can be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of acting without a warrant. It suffices to say that the metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream and the ensuing loss of evidence are among the factors that must be considered in deciding whether a warrant is required. No doubt, given the large number of arrests for this offense in different jurisdictions nationwide,

            ***********************cases will arise when anticipated delays in obtaining a warrant will justify a blood test without judicial authorization, for in every case the law must be concerned that evidence is being destroyed. **************************************

            But that inquiry ought not to be pursued here where the question is not properly before this Court.”

            http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/11-1425.html

            In short, you are simply dead wrong that McNeely dictates a particular result in this case, when the opinion itself recognized that there could be other fact situations that would justify obtaining blood without a warrant — fact situations like a VICTIM, as opposed to a suspect, and the possibility that the subject may die as opposed to Mr. McNeely who was uninjured.

            Either go to law school or stick to your day job.

          • VaHam

            Exactly the 2 tests address the REASONABLENESS of the individual’s right to privacy and the other factor is whether a warrant or other permissible circumstance (such as exigency) is sufficient to not require a warrant. McNeely tells us exigency not sufficient and Birchfield warrantless blood tests are not allowed. I know you prefer to give few rights to victims than to suspects but SCOTUS has been very clear on these issues and granted the cases are having to do with suspects but the notion that the rights of victims are less than those of suspects is just laughable.

            Birtchfield v. North Dakota which held
            “HOLDING:
            1. The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk
            driving but not warrantless blood tests. Pp. 13–36. (a) Taking a blood sample or
            administering a breath test is a search governed by the Fourth Amendment. See Skinner
            v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 616–617; Schmerber v. California,”

            as well as others 🙂

          • renegadesix

            No, no, no. Read the ENTIRE opinion. Heck, if you would have just read a little bit further into the case note (which, by the way, is not the word of the Court) you would have found that the SCOTUS did NOT categorically state that officers cannot draw blood without a warrant:

            “Nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not. See McNeely, 569 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 22–23).”

          • VaHam

            I spent time answering this earlier but for some reason that response disappeared as did another one I posted day before yesterday so I time wasted. I have no clue how my posts failed has anyone else had any problems with that happening?

            Anyway back to your assertion. Yes I have read Neely in it’s entirety even reread it in the last few days. But your assumption that I rely solely on it is not accurate. For instance
            BIRTCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA I believe we have already discussed which provides:

            “More recently, though, we have held that the natural
            dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream does not always
            constitute an exigency justifying the warrantless
            taking of a blood sample. That was the holding of Missouri
            v. McNeely, 569 U. S. ___, where the State of Missouri
            was seeking a per se rule that “whenever an officer
            has probable cause to believe an individual has been
            driving under the influence of alcohol, exigent circumstances
            will necessarily exist because BAC evidence is
            inherently evanescent.” Id., at ___ (opinion of the Court)
            (slip op., at 8). We disagreed, emphasizing that Schmerber
            had adopted a case-specific analysis depending on “all of
            the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” ”

            Note that the court here found that even when there was probable cause the use of a warrantless search would not be allowed without taking into consideration all the other factors. They did not provide any blanket relief for exigency with out probable cause.

            So other than common sense there may need to be a clarification by the SCOTUS as to the absolute requirement for court orders to compel blood samples to be taken where there is no probable cause that the victim committed any crime. Perhaps the ACLU will join this case and it can become a precedence setting case for the rights of victims.

          • renegadesix

            Good grief, Birchfield doesn’t help you either as your other link should have made apparent to you. All Birchfield did was strike down an implied consent law that imposed CRIMINAL penalties for failing to consent when ordered to do so. It also held that while breath tests are permissible without a warrant as a search incident to arrest, blood tests are not. That’s it. Birchfield provides you no help at all in this situation.

            To the contrary, it actually buttresses what I have been trying to tell you from day one — whether a warrant is required in a situation like this is not cut and dried. McNeely does not require it, and, in fact, recognizes that you have to look at every situation on a case-by-case basis.

          • VaHam

            See last paragraph! I think from the cases that SCOTUS has made it very clear that blood tests are invasive and there subject to warrants. But we know you feel victims have fewer rights than subjects.

          • renegadesix

            “Nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not. See McNeely, 569 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 22–23).”

            What part of “or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement” are you not understanding? This very specifically states that if there is not enough time to get a warrant and exigent circumstances exist, blood may be drawn without a warrant.

          • VaHam

            And I believe Birchfield clarified that. But this is like third time I have had to point that out and I am sure folks are getting tired of this legal banter so rather than any more I am going to stop replying to your banter so you’ll get free shots. Don’t make a fool of your self when your arguing with your self. I do at this have 2 other unanswered posts from you to reply to and then I am going to break off.

          • VaHam

            It is not that warrants are required it is that reasons allowed under law are required.

          • renegadesix

            So, you admit you were wrong when you wrote:

            “REASONABLENESS requires that you follow the Constitution including the 4th amendment’s requirement for warrants”

            Well, perhaps you can be taught afterall.

          • VaHam

            I am not going to rehash but warrants are generally required under the 4th amendment. I discussed the exceptions and points from MISSOURI v. MCNEELY and BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA. But you haven’t shown why the compelling of a blood test in this set of circumstances is allowed anywhere by law. Absent of this the officers committed a false arrest. I will leave their motives up to investigation.

          • renegadesix

            You’re not going to rehash because you don’t want to be proven wrong again. Both Birchfield and McNeely specifically acknowledge, as I have quoted to you repeatedly, that warrantless blood draws may be permissible under the exigent circumstances exception where the facts warrant it.

            I have never claimed that THIS set of circumstances justified a warrantless test. All I have argued is that there is no case law that holds law enforcement may NEVER get blood without a warrant (which was your position when this conversation began).

          • VaHam

            What case are you talking about then this one is being discussed here. “I have never claimed that THIS set of circumstances justified a warrantless test.” If you admit this then there is no justification for making and arrest at all and especially in the manner it was done. It makes for great bulling to try and get your way under color but not legal. I’ll ask your learned legal opinion on this is false arrest criminally punishable or not?

          • Matt McDonald

            ummm… the person was dead, number one, and number 2, the toxicology could not be used to prosecute the other party.

          • renegadesix

            Ummmm, number one there could be others involved (remember this agency was assisting the agency that was actually involved in the pursuit) and number 2 a post mortem tox screen will not be as good because the body will continue metabolising substances while the individual is alive (and unless my memory fails, even for a period of time after death). The body metabolises approximately one 12 ounce beer or one ounce of hard liquor an hour. If the patient remains alive for two hours, that means two drinks worth are gone from the BAC.

          • Matt McDonald

            Can’t prosecute the deadperson, cant prosecute anyone with another persons toxicology. Either way, doesn’t excuse the assault.

          • renegadesix

            You serve a drunk, you can be held liable under many state statutes. I suggest you learn about dram shop acts.

            More relevant here is that a clean tox could refute a subsequent allegation by another party that the trucker was in any way at fault due to intoxication.

          • Matt McDonald

            Dram laws are irrelevant to this situation. As to the fault in the accident, it would only be relevant in a civil case, someone else’s bad act doesn’t affect the criminality of your action. And once again, it doesn’t excuse the assault, or battery, or excessive force, false arrest, whatever you want to call it to mitigate the crimes and civil rights violations perpetrated by this thug, and witnessed by other thugs who failed to intercede as their sworn duty requires. And now you will call me a cop hater, but I’m not, I love cops, a support cops, I hate BLM, but I love the constitution more, and when they disregard it, they need to go.

          • renegadesix

            Just going to leave this here and … you’re welcome for the free legal education.

            ——————————–
            Circuit Judge Peggy Stevens McGraw referred to Missouri law and prior court decisions as justification for her decision to dismiss the charge of involuntary manslaughter. McGraw wrote that, “While other states have concluded that social hosts may be held liable to third parties for injuries inflicted by an intoxicated person, Missouri has not.”
            ———————————-

            https://www.missourilawyers.com/blog/alcohol-supplier-guilty-fatal-drunk-driving-accident/

          • VaHam
          • renegadesix

            Actually, he makes no such point. He is speaking on the Utah implied consent law, and the BIrchfield decision which found such laws that have criminal penalties (Utah’s law is not such a law), to be unconstitutional.

            The point of his article was that the nurse was right for the wrong reasons (as anyone who had actually read all of McNeely could have told you), because the Utah implied consent law only authorizes drawing blood from persons suspected of driving crimes (which the trucker was not).

          • VaHam

            I would suggest you argue that matter with him; he can be found at:

            Paul Cassell is the Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, where he teaches criminal procedure and related subjects.

          • renegadesix

            I am not disagreeing with him. You are citing him for something he didn’t say.

          • VaHam

            The only thing I said was he made the “point well regarding REASONABLENESS”
            Did you miss the following in his article:

            “The ultimate requirement of our Constitution is that police must behave reasonably. Handcuffing a nurse and throwing her into a squad car is, given all of the circumstances here, not reasonable – and, it turns out, was not ultimately supportable under Utah law.”.

            So is it you claim I am citing something he didn’t say???

          • VaHam

            Perhaps we should have “evidence preservation” of all houses in case someone accuses them of harboring illicit activity. Well the answer is our founding fathers had the good sense to spell it out for those without common sense in the 4th amendment. That should never happen without good cause and saying your doing it to prove there was nothing illegal there is not mentioned therein; however the need for warrants which require probable cause is spelled out.

          • renegadesix

            And again we have failure to understand. I provided you with a motive, not a legal justification. Do leave the strawmen alone, won’t you?

          • avei

            I think we did once. Prior to 1776. They were called Writs of Assistance. Our founders felt so strongly about them, that they refused to endorse the constitution without the Bill of Rights to make sure that the King, President, or other member of the executive branch (ie cops), had to get the approval of the judicial branch.

          • Denver Bob

            Agreed

          • bacchys

            What would those “valid reasons” be? Because the “we’re trying to protect him” isn’t a valid reason, let alone a credible one.

          • disqus_7Xm3FAKSdC

            It seems most apparent that the police officers were incompetent in doing their job. Police work is a tremendous responsibility and you darn well better know the law if you claim authority to enforce it. Arrogance, ego and attitude has been failing our police to an increasing degree in this country. Not just anyone can be a good cop.

          • renegadesix

            Perhaps you should pick up a badge and a gun and show them how its done?

          • disqus_7Xm3FAKSdC

            I spent years as a cop and would have never handled this situation that way. You have to have discernment that allows you to serve beyond your ego.

          • renegadesix

            So did I. And I wouldn’t have done this to my ER folks either. But if you were a cop you should know that one should exercise discernment rather than jump on bandwagons. Cops make mistakes. We can strive for perfection and we will never get there. This “fire ’em” mentality for every single solitary mistake is going to leave us with precious few people willing to pick up a badge and gun. Who wants to work in a zero tolerance environment?

          • VaHam

            Making mistakes is forgivable however allowing ego to override law and common sense is a dangerous characteristic and should not be allowed under color. Some people are just not cut out with the control and good sense to be cops.

          • renegadesix

            It is your OPINION that this was about ego. A person trying to do the right thing — who is convinced they are doing the right thing — often appears to be egotistical. Moreover, it is part of the job. These are career officers with years of service. You want to throw all of that experience out the window over a mistaken interpretation of the law. Thank goodness most of us don’t work under those kind of conditions or no one would have a job. You may be the second coming of Christ and absolutely perfect in everything YOU do, but the rest of us mere mortals aren’t so fortunate.

            Change the facts, suppose the cops had a warrant to get the blood drawn and the nurse was refusing to allow them to do so on the basis of some hospital policy. I think we can all agree that a warrant trumps any hospital policy. Wouldn’t you want the officers to force the issue on the nurse and arrest her if she continued obstructing their execution of a warrant? Wouldn’t it look like the officers were being “bullies” in that scenario too?

            You are armchair quarterbacking something you have probably never had to do in your life — make split second decisions in a rapidly changing fact situation with incomplete and oftentimes incorrect information.

          • Sean L. Allen

            Egotistical is better than the other alternative…stupidity….ignorance.

          • renegadesix

            There are tens of thousands of laws on the books. I’m a lawyer with 20 years of experience and I haven’t memorized all of them. You expect a cop with 5 years experience and a high school diploma to have them memorized?

          • Barry

            They did not need to memorize anything in this case. They were very kindly presented with the current policy — in writing — that was based upon current law and agreed to by their own department. A conscious choice was made to disregard that policy.

            Lt. Tracy can be heard telling the nurse (after the arrest) that these policies exist only to protect the hospital from liability and that they interfere with “my law.”

          • renegadesix

            One more time…with feeling…policy — even one agreed to by a police department– does not carry the force of law. Surely you understand that?

          • Barry

            I’m not discussing whether or not they complied with the law. I am simply pointing out that they had a readily available guideline on which to base their decisions. This brings us back to the “reasonable person” test. A reasonable person, when presented with a policy written and/or agreed upon by their own employer, would follow that policy. There would have to be a truly compelling reason to decide otherwise.

          • renegadesix

            That’s the point. How do they know it is a valid policy written and agreed to by their department? Was there any evidence that they had seen it before or been provided a copy by their department? And remember, while all this is happening in real time, potential evidence is litterally vanishing in the next room.

            FYI, the nurse in this story from a few years back claimed hospital policy didn’t allow her to permit officers to execute an arrest warrant. They wound up tasing her and charging her with a felony. She tried to sue and lost. Exact same scenario only more force was used and the officers were in the right.

            http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/archive/police-officers-justified-in-shocking-nurse-with-taser/article_cc7875fe-3365-543a-8080-d698e08db853.html

            And I keep coming back to this, why didn’t the nurse simply tell them they had already drawn blood or were about to? Why play lawyer? Why pull out the policy at all? The cynic in me tells me there is more to this from the nurse’s standpoint than anyone is willing to acknowledge or look into. Is she a cop hater? Did she have problems with these officers in the past? Had she recently gotten a speeding ticket and decided to flex a little ego of her own? Curious minds who are interested in the WHOLE story want to know.

          • Barry

            Quite a stretch but very lawyerly. I’m sure you’re an excellent lawyer — I’d certainly want you on my side.

            The problem is, while the individuals involved need representation, this situation does not call for lawyers, it cries out for good public relations.

            In this particular case, members of the law enforcement community publicly defending these officers will do more damage to the reputation of police in this country than the (real cop hating) idiots in the street shouting “hands up, don’t shoot!”

          • renegadesix

            Not a stretch at all. These are two nearly identical sets of circumstances in which the only differences are the Georgia nurse got treated worse and the Utah nurse happened to be right about the law.

            And again, I’m not defending them from anything more than the specious claims that they are evil and corrupt because they made a mistake about the law. Public relations? The public needs to understand that cops are human beings who make mistakes, and when they do they need to receive the same consideration as every other human being who makes a mistake.

          • Barry

            Sorry, I should have been more specific. The “stretch” I was referring to was your wild conjecture about the nurse’s history and motives (cop hater, got a speeding ticket, etc.) especially when there was nothing in her demeanor to suggest she was trying to do anything but her job. I’m certain you’ll agree with this since, as a police officer, reading a person’s demeanor is paramount to your safety and your effectiveness. Detective Payne’s demeanor was clearly on display though as he became increasingly agitated with the situation, telling the nurse’s supervisor on the phone “she’s the one that’s saying no,” and finally “we’re through here!” As was Lt. Tracy’s demeanor when he made sure Nurse Wubbels knew this was not the first time he had trouble with this hospital interfering with HIS law.

            At no time have I used terms like “evil” and “corrupt” and I vehemently disagree with those who do. I am merely stating that, in this particular incident, they were unequivocally wrong every step of the way. There were many opportunities to change course, the most obvious being when presented with the policy. A simple “Would you mind emailing that to my boss so we can check it out?” would have prevented all of this.

            Thus, to the public, this looks like a simple case of a cop who doesn’t like to be told “no.” Aside from the unfortunate and unfounded anti-police hysteria in this country, the intense public anger you’re seeing in this case was fueled by the fact that the Department kept both members on active duty for more than a month until the video went public. This gave the appearance of an intended whitewash.

            Should anybody be fired over this? That’s not for me to decide. I believe in due process and that somebody’s overall service record should be taken into account. Everybody makes mistakes. If I had to guess, the only person to lose his job over this will be Chief Brown since it was his inaction that allowed the public furor to build.

            Of course, Payne losing his Paramedic job was pretty much automatic since he admitted to unethical and unlawful behavior. I don’t know how the Utah Dept. of Health operates but he might even lose his certification.

          • renegadesix

            Understood now, but I would still like to know why she didn’t just tell them.

          • Barry

            That can only be answered with the standard old punchline:

            They never asked. 🙂

          • avei

            Non sequitur, counselor. The man was severely injured, in the burn unit and has been hospitalized in critical condition for over a month. I do not expect you to be cognizant of the medical care aspects of a severely burned patient who was also in a severe MVA, and likely has significant trauma injury as well.

            I do expect you to know that a para-professional and all medical professionals including students in any health care setting are required to know, understand and obey HIPAA. If you have ever, even once been in a physician office in the past 20 years, or even a dentist’s office, then you have had to sign a HIPAA declaration before you are able to see a doctor.

          • renegadesix

            What? He had not been in the hospital for a month. The accident had JUST HAPPENED THAT DAY!!! And, once again, HIPAA does not prohibit telling the officers a blood test had been done.

          • avei

            Now you are just being obtuse. The man, at the time the highly compensated Detective Payne, was throwing his weight around, the man was in the burn unit in critical condition. As of this writing, he has been hospitalized (as can be seen from all available evidence) since that time, and from those same sources, he is still in at least serious condition. And, in fact, HIPAA does say exactly that. See below.

          • renegadesix

            Something else I just noticed in the more recent stories about this case:

            “He added that the department’s blood draw policy has been updated to mirror the hospital’s procedures”

            If the hospital policy the nurse had was blessed by the police department, why did the police department’s internal policy have to be updated to mirror the hospital’s AFTER this incident? This sounds like the officers were following their department’s policy and that policy was different than the hospital’s policy.

            Curiouser and curiouser.

            http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2017/09/05/z-what-we-know-utah-nurse-and-cop-who-dragged-and-arrested-her/633182001/

          • medbob

            Policy is based upon law. In this case, it is very specific law involving a SCOTUS case that was publicized. If these police cannot be bothered to follow the changes in law and policy that affect their work, then they are not performing their due diligence. They are not fulfilling the requirements of their badge.

          • renegadesix

            The SCOTUS case did not deal with victims. Can you not read? Be that as it may, why was the department policy different?

          • avei

            medbob, with due respect, the law that policy is based on is HIPAA, and hospitals, physicians and nurses and para-professionals are terrified of violating it. It is not based on any Supreme Court case. It is based on HHS’s zealous prosecution of even innocent violations of that law, which have bankrupted those who have violated it.

          • medbob

            While HIPAA applies to information rather than evidence, the policy that the hospital put in place takes stock of all of the laws regarding evidence and information. It is quite telling that the police department has changed their policy to mirror that of the Hospital.

          • medbob

            The term “my law” is prima-facie evidence of ego.

          • medbob

            The ones he is enforcing, YES that is my expectation as a citizen. If he needs a research assistant, one should be provided for him, and he should have sufficient time set aside to keep up with Continuing Education in laws pertaining to his service and what he enforces.
            Yes, I EXPECT excellence.

          • renegadesix

            Then you expect that which cannot happen. We don’t issue research assistants to police officers. Get a grip on reality.

          • medbob

            I don’t really expect a research assistant, but the policeman must KNOW the applicable law. In this case, this was the specific specialty of Detective Payne. If he was not keeping up with current law, then he is negligent in his duties.
            I would also argue that if you have officers that are ignorant of the law such as these two, you NEED a research assistant to make up for the low quality candidates you have allowed into your department.

          • renegadesix

            However, he was apparently following his department’s now changed policy. How is the failure of his department to give him a good up to date policy his fault?

          • medbob

            As a professional, if my knowledge of the current state of medicine conflicts with hospital policy, I will climb the ladder right up to the Chief Medical Officer. That is my obligation as a professional.
            Are police expected to be professionals?

          • avei

            Then surely you have heard of HIPAA and at least, in passing, know its provisions. The Lt. has at least 22 plus years of experience from the available record. The detective’s experience is unknown, he worked for a covered entity under HIPAA and as an ambulance driver could reasonably be expected to encounter protected health information. HIPAA training and recurrent training is compulsory to health care professionals and para-professionals and anyone else who might become privy to PHI. This detective would have been trained and recurrently trained. I do expect him to have these rules memorized, as they pertain to this situation.

            These two officers were not unaware of the laws. They chose to ignore them and Lt. Tracy insisted his law prevailed over hospital policy, which in turn was based on federal regulation issued pursuant to federal law. Detective Payne had a duty to inform his commander of laws which he was regularly trained on, and did not. Ultimately, the criminal investigation may uncover the reasons Det. Payne and Lt. Tracy decided to ignore the law, trespass, and threaten to commit medical battery on an unconscious patient, and did commit battery on that patient’s advocate. Both should be removed from police service for an extended period of time, if not permanently.

          • renegadesix

            I do know HIPAA and its why I know that it does not prohibit a nurse from telling the officers that a blood draw had been done. Such a statement reveals absolute ZERO protected health information. Moreover, the hospital’s subsequent revelation of that information demonstrates that they agree with me or they would not have passed the information along.

          • Terri Lamkin

            We do expect a cop with 28 years experience and one of the force’s phlebotomists to stay current on current law with regard to his position as the phlebotomist. He should have been more aware of legal blood draws than the nurse.

          • VaHam

            If they had a warrant, as the nurse told them, there would have been no problem to begin with.
            The problem is that the police ignored the 4th amendment rights of the victim. This was not a split second decision it went on for more than an hour according to reports. The officers should have sought out higher authority at the hospital if they felt the hospital policy was wrong. Manhandling a charge nurse inside the ER in an obvious outburst of temper and this wasn’t directed at some violent threatening suspect but an innocent nurse following orders. It leaves one to guess what goes on in other less public encounters with these officers. Why did Lt. Tracy order the arrest of the nurse but refuse to even speak with the hospital officer dismissing them in an arrogant manner? Talking about bringing this hospital the indigent patients and taking the good ones elsewhere speaks worlds about his thought processes IMHO and they are not in line with good characteristics for being a cop; revenge from those in authority can never be tolerated. When your a hammer everything looks like a nail and that attitude is what gives cops a bad name.

          • renegadesix

            You are wrong. Alcohol and drugs metabolize over time. You should know this as you quoted that part of the SCOTUS opinion on the subject. The more time you spend arguing with someone, the more evidence you lose. In the final analysis the correct party to turn to is NOT the hospital administration. In hindsight, they should have consulted someone over the lieutenant, or tried to go to a magistrate (although I doubt very seriously if they would have gotten a warrant).

            Of course, the whole thing could have been avoided if the nurse would have simply told them, “we have already drawn his blood.”

            And again, no one in the cop hating segment of this discussion thinks to ask why she didn’t do that. Makes one wonder about her motives and her ego.

          • Kim Phillips

            It has been explained, ad nauseam, through the comments that the nurse could not respond to that due to hipaa laws. Any nurse who violates hipaa is at risk of hefty fines and possible loss of license. Why is it that you can refer to her “ego” but when someone speaks to the “ego” of the officer involved, they are labeled a cop hater? You can bet your ass that if I were faced with the possible loss of my license, my livelihood, I would have done the same. I would also protect my patient at any cost. There was no evidence of “ego” in the nurse who handled this situation calmly and I have seen many nurses with ego problems, this nurse does not appear to be one of them.

          • renegadesix

            No, it has been asserted, INCORRECTLY, that HIPAA prevents such a revelation. IT DOES NOT. The results of a test are protected health information in this circumstance, not that such a test was done. Moreover, the actions of the hospital in TELLING the officers after the fact likewise demonstrates that revealing that kind of information does not violate HIPAA.

            You are going to have to come up with something other than HIPAA.

            The reason I speak of ego with respect to the nurse is that is the only rational explanation left. HIPAA does not prevent her from saying, like they did later, “we already drew his blood.” Do tell, when someone comes to you asking to do something that you have already done, do you not tell them you have already done it?

            It isn’t about ego for the officers because had they been right, what everyone is relying on as evidence of “ego” is EXACTLY what the officers were supposed to have done — removed an obstacle that was preventing them from carrying out their investigation. Again, I invite you and everyone else who cannot see the importance of this distinction to read the link I provided on the Georgia nurse who refused to allow (on the basis of hospital policy) officers to serve an arrest warrant on a patient. She got a lot worse than this nurse got, and the officers engaged in arguably worse conduct than Detective Payne did here (they actually tasered the nurse). The only difference between this situation and the Georgia case is that the nurse here was right about the law (for the wrong reasons).

            It isn’t “ego” when you take the actions you are supposed to take to prevent evidence from being destroyed. It is ego when you refuse to part with one piece of non-protected information that would defuse the entire situation.

          • avei

            No, the assertion is not incorrect. The police had no authority. The law and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the law required the request to be in the best interest of the patient as determined by the hospital. The hospital made its determination that the request was not in the best interest of the patient, and properly protected the patient and declined the request. The law correctly gives this authority to the hospital and not to the police.

          • medbob

            No. The nurse refused to allow the draw. That is moral restraint. If the police had the legal right to obtain a specimen, he should have went ahead and obtained the specimen. There is no need to take a nurse into custody to accomplish something that you believe is within your rights as an officer.
            In all the other articles about this incident, it is stated that the detective wanted the nurse to collect the specimen for him.
            As for interpretation of law, there is no manner of justice that would justify arresting this nurse either in the real scenario before us or in the hypothetical you postulated. The bully behavior was toward the nurse, who apparently had a better grasp of the legalities than the cop did.
            As for being mortals, this is an obvious case of malfeasance. They were using the interfering canard as a bludgeon. These are NOT good cops. They demonstrate no excellence at all, in either knowledge of the law nor in acceptance of the possibility that they might be wrong. They certainly don’t have a full understanding (or at least don’t demonstrate a full understanding) of individual rights and the current legal state of this situation. They are presented with a written legal policy from the hospital, yet they do not question their course. It does not appear that they entertained the thought that the Nurse might be right. That is humility and is an essential element of all humans.

          • renegadesix

            If that nurse is hindering you in your duty, you bet your sweet bippy there is the authority to take her into custody. In my jurisdiction it is called “obstructing governmental operations.” Plenty of jurisdictions have similar laws by other names (e.g., failure to obey a police officer, obstruction, etc.). In some jurisdictions like Georgia, there are felony versions of obstruction. Of course, you better be right when you make that arrest or you are in the same situation as these cops are.

            You do realize that a hospital policy is not law, right? The hospital could write a policy that says, “under no circumstances will we allow police officers to arrest anyone on our premises.” How well do you think that policy would hold up in court? How do you think it would go for a nurse trying to stop police from effecting a lawful arrest?

          • Phil White

            I don’t know of a Utah law like that. Now because of changes by University of Utah cops can not interact with nurses or medical staff now, police now have to deal with designated staff, campus police have to tell them to leave or they will arrest the law enforcement officer for trespassing. University of Utah hospital is behind U of U campus.

          • renegadesix

            Well, that’s going to make for an interesting scenario if something happens like that incident in Georgia a few years ago. In that case officers with an arrest warrant showed up at a hospital to take a man into custody for a sex offense. A nurse, citing hospital policy, refused to let the officers back into the area where the patient/offender was. While they were arguing, the bad guy heard it and took off out a back door. The nurse was arrested, and convicted of hindering. She filed a civil rights lawsuit and lost all the way up to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals before giving up.

            http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/archive/police-officers-justified-in-shocking-nurse-with-taser/article_cc7875fe-3365-543a-8080-d698e08db853.html

            So, if what you are telling me is true, the University has now set up a potential scenario where officers armed with a warrant risk getting into an armed confrontation with campus police if the hospital administrators refuse to acknowledge the warrant.

          • Phil White

            Well this nurse you mentioned got to face a jury, I hope. I hope that Officer Payne gets jury, he will ask for a bench trial. I am enjoying this enfold on facebook and local Utah media. Utah being one of the most pro cop states in the union is looking quite different right now. This is a great time for people like you to double down you are helping the cause of liberty. Because the justice I want for rapist is for them to be shot in the act. I thank God for DNA evidence and the thousands of vacated convictions. I am Whig to the core I hope, no Ben Church in me, I hope. Oh, machiavellian arguments don’t mean anything to me.

          • medbob

            The hospital could not vet such a policy as part of the process is legal vetting. The hospital would be exposing themselves to massive legal liability. It is very telling that after this incident, the police have changed their policy to line up with that of the hospital. That indicates that the hospital policy was correct.
            When presented with the policy, the detective ignored it. When the watch commander was given the policy, he deflected it. In the end it was demonstrated that the hospital policy was correct. Instead of following the proper route of obtaining a warrant to get what they needed, (which in Utah takes 20 minutes) they determined that bullying a nurse was the proper path.

            The nurse is a professional with professional responsibilities. She has no legal burden to obtain a specimen outside her professional responsibilities. Period. There is absolutely no requirement for her to operate under the authority of the police. If they want a specimen, they can take responsibility and obtain it. The only reason they would have for not doing so, is that they did not WANT to take responsibility for the draw.

            If you would perform the same action in his circumstances, they you need to turn in your badge as well. Obstruction and interfering have specific meanings in english, and neither confer the meaning of a burden to perform.

          • renegadesix

            Right, the department changed its policy. Which means these officers were following their department’s policy. Ooops.

          • medbob

            Now, who is focused upon one point and ignoring the larger issues presented? As for a change in policy, the SCOTUS change is relatively recent, but is still months old. Again, whatever policy you are referring to has not been presented, and if it exists, was completely outdated. That point also ignores the red line of professional responsibility.

          • renegadesix

            That was my point. The department has had to update and change its policy beause of this incident. That means the officers were following an existing, but incorrect, policy.

            That isn’t the officer’s fault. That is the department’s fault.

          • medbob

            As you have stated before, a policy is not law. The policy (apparently) written by the department is not better, and in this case was proven to be less accurate than the hospital policy, which was presented to the Detective. There is no documentation that the Detective presented his policy to the Nurse, and even at that, the Nurse states that the policy had been sent to the department.
            In a case of dueling policies, The Law is the only prevailing position. The Nurse knew the law and was better informed in her position than the officers, but I have been told in the past with regard to perps that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The Detective has no excuse for his actions because when you get down to bedrock, he could not convince a judge (or did not try to convince a judge) that he had a legal right to obtain a specimen. Instead of following the law and respecting the rights of the Nurse and the Patient, he chose to turn to violence to impose his will. That is the crux of what is wrong, and the attitude behind it is that the “gathering of evidence” is an absolute right of every officer. That attitude is wrong in law, it is wrong in ethics, and is morally bankrupt. This situation demonstrates that clearly.

          • bacchys

            You’ve forgotten the “Reasonably Stupid Cop” rule, as articulated in Heien v. North Carolina, which says that law enforcement can be ignorant of the law.

          • medbob

            That should fall into the category of some of the dumbest rulings ever. If you cook, you use a measuring spoon. If you do carpentry, it’s the ruler, tape measure or square. Writers use a dictionary and thesaurus.
            Police… Just make your best guess. Grrrrrr.

          • bacchys

            The courts prefer to not let criminals go, and the rest of us have to suffer the consequences of that.

          • BigTime

            which had mistakenly not been updated since the agreement. Oops!

          • Terri Lamkin

            Yes, they changed their policy…. although never have I seen it stated that the change was to make it line up with the hospital’s policy. What I have seen reported is that the change was to explicitly state “implied consent shall not be used.” That seems to imply the policy in effect at the time of the incident was in line with current law and the hospital’s policy, and therefore the argument that neither Payne or Tracy were aware of the of the illegality of what they were asking for is seriously weak.

          • Sean L. Allen

            Why are you breaking you back to make ludicrous excuses for obvious incompetence?

          • renegadesix

            Actually, I’m hardly breaking a sweat. Internet lawyers are easily defeated, even if they don’t know or acknowledge it.

          • Jim Marshall

            Yes, everyone makes mistakes, but people who are not cops pay the consequences for those mistakes. There is also the matter of the disrespectful way this cop treated the nurse. Again, in any other job there would be consequences for that.

          • renegadesix

            You don’t think these guys will get, at minimum, days off? You don’t think their careers are ruined over this? Isn’t that enough? Do you want them executed too? I’m just wondering, how far is this bandwaggon of hate going to go?

            BTW, when do cops actually start getting paid for their excellence? Police are very much underpaid for what they do. So do let me know when you start forcing your political leaders to pay officers for the near-perfection that you demand.

          • Jim Marshall

            The answer is what would happen to a civilian if they did the same thing. Days off? Unacceptable. A civilians career would be ruined by this sort of behavior. We need to treat the police the same as civilians when they break the law.

          • renegadesix

            If you made a mistake in your job, yes, I would be willing to bet that you probably wouldn’t get more than yelled at. These guys will get, as I said, at minimum, some unpaid days off. Maybe demoted. Maybe fired since this thing has become a political firestorm.

            Tell me, how many civilian jobs have you filmed round the clock so that your every move can be second guessed weeks later by people who have no idea how to do your job?

          • Jim Marshall

            If I laid hands on another person like that and lost my temper like that I would keep my job? That’s nuts! Most high pressure jobs (and there are jobs that are more dangerous and higher pressure than that of the police) have plenty of people second guessing them. Any public facing job has people second guess and armchair quarterbacking.

          • renegadesix

            You job doesn’t require you to lay hands on another person!

          • avei

            The State of Utah lists Lt. Tracy’s salary and Det. Payne’s salary. Underpaid? In every one of the 50 states except my own, according to those records, both are not middle class. While not 1%-ers, they are pretty darn close.

            At those wages, we should expect they would at least follow the law, and refrain from using deceit and intimidation to get what they lawfully cannot have. I don’t think they should be executed, but I do think that Lt. Tracy should expect to learn, first hand, the precise nature of the civil remedies he discussed. And the City of Salt Lake should not pay to defend him. Just like ordinary citizens don’t get paid to be defended when police misbehave and have to defend themselves and spend hundreds of thousands on defense lawyers.

          • renegadesix

            I doubt very seriously that you would do their job at that or any salary. Unless they are making 6 figures are better, they are underpaid.

          • avei

            According to the State, they are not underpaid by your criteria–by a substantial margin. One is paid more than some judges. I think its enough pay to be respectful and responsible, don’t you think?

          • medbob

            This was a miscarriage of justice. It goes well beyond “mistake”.
            As for excellence, there are many police who should be fired for mistakes. In this case, we have a watch commander who thinks that “interfering” with an investigation trumps all personal rights of a patient AND a nurse. Are you trying to tell me that these tendencies and illegal actions have never been observed in these cops before? Are you really trying to say that this strategy was never used before to bully their way thru a situation? Payne himself puts the lie to that statement when he says that he has seen this kind of situation before but that it never goes this far. That’s because this rotten cop is going up against a two time olympian hero nurse who knows the law thru her policies. He finally meets someone with higher ethical standards than him, but the answer is bullying and violence.

          • renegadesix

            What EVIDENCE do you have that these “tendencies” have been observed in these particular officers before? I’ll await your non-response.

          • medbob

            Payne states specifically in the video in discussion with another officer that he has seen situations like this before but that it “had never went to this level”. I would read that statement to mean that the situation had always been resolved before getting to the point of arrest to get your way. I don’t know how you can evaluate that statement to mean anything different, but the statement itself indicates that this was not his first time at the rodeo.

          • medbob

            As a citizen, I am not asking for a zero tolerance environment, I am asking that excellence be expected. I am asking that “average” not be allowed. I am also asking that police be paid for that excellence, and that fellow police officers police their own. Were I a cop in that room, the detective would have been advised ahead of time, and he would have been knocked on his a** had he persisted.

          • renegadesix

            What do you know about how these officers have performed their duties in the years they have been officers? If this is the ONLY mistake they have ever made as cops, does that mean they should be fired in your mind? If so, you are a zero tolerance person and, I would argue, a cop hater.

          • medbob

            This is a grievous assault upon this nurse’s individual liberties. This was not based upon any lawful purpose, therefore it was an assault under color of authority when there was no legal authority to perform the proposed action and no proper justification for the assault.
            The nurse had no duty to perform outside her legal and professional responsibilities, and yet was assaulted by this thug with a badge.
            You add that to the comments about the affect upon his after work part time job, and you have a picture of a man who is morally corrupt. This is NO MERE MISTAKE. You then have the watch commander who arrived on scene and would not discuss the VETTED LEGAL POLICY of the hospital NOR the professional responsibilities of the nurse. No, his entire intellectual focus was upon the “Interfering” canard, with no allowance for the legality of the action, nor discussion of the framework surrounding the situation. Again, an aggravated position and the inability to listen to reason.
            I am a cop lover. I believe in law and order, constitutional rights, and support of the police. I do not believe in lax discipline for police, nor tolerance of anti-intellectual and unnecessary aggressive behavior. If a policeman steps over that red line, he should be disciplined aggressively. Police service should be akin to military service. The police must know the law, must administer the law, and must operate within the law. Arrest outside proper legal grounds is simple assault, and disqualifies an officer from service.

          • renegadesix

            Oh spare me the histrionics. She was pushed out a door, placed in handcuffs, and sat in the back of a patrol car for 20 minutes. Yes, her rights were violated, but to say this was a “grievous assault” is blowing the situation way out of proportion. Is she dead? Did she suffer any physical injury? No, she did not. She suffered no more than de minimis injury.

            Yes, it is bad that her rights were violated, but please, do not make a mountain out of a molehill.

            And yes there was a lawful purpose — the gathering of evidence. What was not lawful was the means by which they sought to gather it.

            You can claim to be a cop lover, but when your arguments turn a simple mistake that resulted in no more than injury to one person’s dignity into claims of corruption you speak exactly like a cop hater.

            This was a mistake. Period. Nothing more.

          • medbob

            Gathering of evidence is SOMETIMES a lawful purpose, it is NOT in all cases. Detective Payne stated that he did not have PC to obtain a warrant which is generally required to obtain such evidence. The recent SCOTUS case directly bears upon the situation. Consent or a warrant are required as directly mentioned by the policy that the nurse presented.
            As for the choice of the word “Grievous”, the physical consequences were minimal, but the infringement upon that nurse’s rights, the mental effects, and the assault upon his badge and the relationship between police and medical in this instance absolutely fit the description due to the aggravating factors here. Detective Payne knew that he did not have PC and would not be able to obtain a warrant. Time would not have resolved his corundum, so claiming time as an essential element is a non-starter. He lacked PC, he lacked exigency, and therefore was confronted with a red line around this patient’s rights. He had a professional standing before him, offering a lifeline in a legally vetted policy that offered him guidance. He had medico-legal professionals on the phone telling him that he was making a mistake.
            Despite every effort to provide this Detective with intellectual guidance, and despite his knowledge that all avenues were closed to him, he fraudulently used the “interference” justification for arrest of the nurse, guided by his emotions. If there is ANY policeman who needs to be REMOVED from service, it is a policeman who ignores all intellectual evidence and acts out in emotion with arresting the source of his frustration.
            All of these facts surrounding this policeman’s behavior make the situation “grievous”. Your attempt to minimize the importance of this action does not serve the public interest, it merely supports the contention that we need more controls regarding the “interference” excuse used to override all discipline and intellect surrounding any particular point of frustration. I would argue that ALL individual rights have frustrated almost every cop at some point or another. The difference is that most are able to walk right up to that red line and stop, as they have the discipline and intellect needed to fully understand the situation and keep their emotions under control.
            This cop did not demonstrate that level of excellence in this situation. You can only predict future behavior by past behavior, and the behavior of this Detective was not a mistake. It was Grievous.

            As for “Cop Lover” versus “Cop Hater”, my determination is based upon intellect. I love police that exhibit excellence and intellect. That would be most of the hard working and honest police across the country. I hate cops who step over the line, who take liberties with the authority that they are given by the citizens of this country, who break the rules using the “interference” loophole, who lie, cheat or steal, or those who arrest nurses or firemen who are doing their jobs. Am I both? Probably. As for those who make apologies for bad cops, who refuse to interdict police who are out of control, and those who attempt to preserve the unlimited use of the “Interfering” excuse, I’m not sure which category those should fall into. I leans toward “needs more training” in the same sense in which the Marine Corps uses that term.

          • renegadesix

            Are you even reading the cases we are discussing? Both cases specifically state that blood may be drawn without a warrant if exigent circumstances exist. Did they exist in this case? Probably not. But you people have got to stop saying the SCOTUS has said law enforcement can NEVER draw blood without a warrant. The SCOTUS has made no such decision.

            You can try to justify your hyperbole all you want, but this was not a “grievous” incident. It was an error. It was a violation of the nurse’s rights. But it was nowhere near “grievous.” Someone getting the brakes beat off them in handcuffs is grievous.

          • medbob

            Which happens to subjects when police get away with stepping over the line like this. Perhaps it is overkill to kick these officers out of the department under the current paradigm, but examples are useful in generating education and pointing out responsibilities.
            I take it very seriously when ANYONE’S rights are violated. Violation of individual rights is an abuse of the contract between government and citizen. Your response indicates that your opinion is that a slap on the wrist will educate these officers regarding this point case. My argument is that this case is larger than the point of drawing blood and goes to an ignorance of individual rights. I would argue that an example SHOULD be made here, and everywhere that an abuse of the “interfering” law occurs. Before an officer arrests someone for interfering, he needs to be 100% sure that he is correct in the law and that he is not abusing his power to accomplish his point goal.
            The aggravating circumstance here is that Detective Payne by his own words KNEW that he could not get a warrant.
            The fourth amendment is directly applicable here, and if the Detective had good cause for obtaining a specimen, he should have made his argument before a judge. He did not because he did not think he would prevail. It is a dastardly and cowardly act to turn that upon a Nurse in an attempt to obtain that which he knew a judge would not give him.

            “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

          • Matt McDonald

            it was an egregious error followed by an assault. Do you as a cop give an assaultive suspect the benefit of the doubt? Who wants to work in a zero tolerance environment.

          • renegadesix

            And these cops will pay the price for using force when none is justified. That doesn’t make them evil or warrant flushing years of good service down the drain for conduct that WOULD have been acceptable but for the underlying misunderstanding of the law.

          • Sean L. Allen

            We already know you don´t fit the bill Mr. Cops are Never Wrong….lol

          • renegadesix

            And that’s why you are easily defeated. I never said cops are never wrong, and specifically said that in this case they were wrong. Don’t let facts ever get in the way of getting a good hate on, internet warrior.

          • VaHam

            What would be a couple of examples of those “valid” reasons for desiring to take the blood of an unconscious victim?

          • renegadesix

            I suggest you read my other posting where I have already provided one. I do try to avoid spam.

          • VaHam

            Well let me restate my question in other words then in order to avoid the appearance of spam. You stated “valid” reasons or to put that in legal terms probable cause. Unconscious means they are certainly unable to grant voluntary consent; even if they were not unconscious but had been administered strong pain killers, as was the case here, it would be questionable if they could legally be held to any potential voluntary consent since they would be under the influence. It is my understanding that this blood draw was requested to be performed by Salt Lake on behalf of the Logan City Police, who had been in pursuit of the man who died after crossing over several lanes to hit the victim’s 18 wheeler head on. Did Salt Lake even ask what probable cause they had for making the request when they agreed to have it performed? Lt. Tracy seems to feel they did have probable cause when he stated after the arrest he could just have Logan come over and obtain a warrant for tox screen information. As I mention in another post the person wearing the body cam had the best question I heard on any of the videos “Why don’t we just go get a warrant” and Det. Payne’s apparent reply is very telling IMHO. I am a strong advocate in favor of police however there are some bad apples and when they are strongly defended, especially in the wake of such complete evidence it only helps to create perfect examples for BLM.

          • renegadesix

            Again, you are confusing this case with a situation in which officers need to get blood from a SUSPECT. This man was not a suspect. Asking about PC is actually about the most ignornant question anyone could have asked in this situation. You don’t develop PC on a VICTIM you develop it on SUSPECTS.

            It is evident from their conduct that these officers were in evidence gathering mode and they just didn’t stop to think it through. I am not defending what they did to the nurse, but I understand completely what they were trying to do.

          • VaHam

            And the SCOTUS made it clear that probable cause is required in order to violate an individual’s 4th amendment rights. To argue that a victim’s rights are less than a suspect’s, demonstrates how far you will go to try and provide cover. Choose your battles more wisely. In this case with all the video evidence; trying to defend the bad apples is only going to serve to give BLM fodder and will harm good officers everywhere. When they are dead wrong you have to be able to say they were dead wrong.

          • renegadesix

            I am not aruging that they are less. The SCOTUS has said, time and time again, that the touchstone of the 4th Amendment is reasonableness. That necessarily makes Fourth Amendment analysis one that is tied to the facts of a particular case. The Supremes have decided that it is unreasonable to get a blood draw from a SUSPECT without a warrant. What they have not decided is whether it is reasonable to get it from a victim. A victim is in a different position than a suspect. The government is not gathering evidence to use against a victim, but rather is using it to HELP the victim get justice from the person who hurt them. That, right there, changes the calculus significantly.

            The SCOTUS might very well decide someday that it is unreasonable to gather evidence from an unconscious victim, but that day has not yet come. Your reliance on McNeely is based upon your complete and utter failure to understand how case law works.

          • Sean L. Allen

            Man no matter how many times VaHam tries to explain how the law works, you keep trying to create precedent victim law when there is NONE. You are embarrassing…

          • renegadesix

            That’s because VaHam doesn’t know how the law works, and your ignorant cheerleading isn’t making a difference.

          • VaHam

            Wrong again testing of an unconscious victim can never help them. If nothing is found then they are in no better legal position than they would be without testing because you are innocent until proven guilty.

          • renegadesix

            Of course it can help them. These are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head:

            1. Gathering DNA from semen left in a rape victim.
            2. Gathering blood from a deliberate poisoning victim.
            3. Obtaining a hair sample from a kidnapping/rape/assault victim to test against hair recovered from a suspect’s clothes/vehicle/home.

            All of these tests would help identify/rule out their attacker/suspects. You have again failed to understand the difference between testing a victim and a suspect. It isn’t that their rights are different, it is the governmental interest and motive for the intrusion that is different and happens to coincide with the interests of the victim (catching and punishing the criminal(s) who hurt them). A suspect and the government have diametrically competing interests. A victim and the government have identical interests.

          • VaHam

            Can you cite where compelling a blood test from a victims person is permitted without their consent or a specific court order?

          • renegadesix

            So, you ask a question. I answer it with three examples and, rather than acknowledge the examples you move on to something else, all while refusing to answer my question about why the nurse didn’t defuse the situation herself?

            Well, here’s a new question for you, can you cite any law where officers cannot use the exigent circumstances exception to obtain blood from a VICTIM? Please limit your response to only those cases in which the person involved was a victim. Thanks.

          • VaHam

            Yes I can the 4th amendment guarantee to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I know you prefer to allow a victim fewer rights than a suspect however before conviction they are both innocent and therefore entitled to the same protections which have been recognized by SCOTUS for DUI suspects.

            You answer my question and it appears your so proud of your answer that you want acknowledgement of it. I was actually being kind since your:
            1. response was gathering semen NOT BLOOD as the question was asked.
            2. was indeed about a blood sample
            3. was hair sample NOT BLOOD

            So 2 out of three were non responsive to the question asked and are not invasive to the person being tested as is the drawing of blood.

            In the case of the third, a sample from a poisoning victim whether dead or alive may be two separate issues depending on death or not. So perhaps you can lead us thru the legal process of sample collection at the hospital should occur in getting this blood test data? What legal process would police need to go thru to obtain the test data?

            Can you cite the law which allows compelling of the collection of blood samles with out 4th amendment protections?

            Can you cite one instance where a VICTIM has been compelled by law to submit to a blood test which they had refused? Remember blood tests are very invasive

          • renegadesix

            First, you did not specify blood. This was your exact statement:

            “Wrong again testing of an unconscious victim can never help them.”

            You said “testing”, not “blood testing.” “Testing” includes blood, semen, hair, and any other kind of testing that can be done on an unconscious person. Likewise you did not say “invasive testing.” You stated only that testing can never help an unconscious victim.

            Nice try at dodging. Unfortunately for you, the proof is right here on the page. Now, acknowledge that testing can help an unconscious victim.

            As for case law, I cite the case law you rely upon. Both McNeely and Birchfield very specifically recognize that warrantless blood draws may be permissible under exigent circumstances. How many more times must I cut and paste those words from the cases you keep citing before you read and understand them? Those cases actually stand for the proposition that under the right circumstances a warrantless blood draw IS permissible.

          • VaHam

            I believe the context of this entire conversation is about BLOOD TESTING. So what constitutes the “exigent circumstance” here because in those same cases deterioration of sample levels alone is prohibited as one. So what other exigent circumstance are you claiming here?

          • renegadesix

            You have bebopped all over the map. I responded to what you SAID. If you meant something different, you should have so specified.

            I am not claiming that there was an exigent circumstance HERE. All I am saying is that the Supreme Court has specifically recognized that a warrantless blood draw may be permissible under exigent circumstances when there is not enough time to get a warrant.

          • VaHam

            One other commentator has suggested that the DOT requirement but I believe there is a 24 hour window on that and even with that the 5th would override and allow refusal of testing and where there is no legal penalty only at most forfeiture would be the penalty for refusal.

            As the nurse pointed out to Lt. Tracy he had already been given medication which testing could then have placed him in a position of have to justify in court later; and thus it was in the best interest of the patient she acted. Lt. Tracy claimed that any drug levels in his tox could be dealt using records; but mistakes happen right? What if a medic forgot to log an injection at the scene or some other simple error placing the victim in jeopardy. That is why it would be in his best interest not to be tested at all since the presumption then would have to be that his tox screen was clear.

          • bacchys

            Under what standard of reasonableness do you think a victim has lesser rights than a suspect?

          • Sean L. Allen

            Thank YOU!!!

          • Jim Marshall

            All sorts of people break laws for “good reason” or a mistaken belief that what they are doing is lawful. They pay the price for that conduct. Cops should be more accountable than civilians for their behavior, not less.

          • renegadesix

            Indeed they should, and these officers will. But calling them “corrupt” and “evil” and all the other vile things that I am seeing here (must be a boring week at all the Cop Block sites so the cop haters have migrated over here) is utterly uncalled for. Not one person posting here, including you or I, know what the rest of these officers’ careers have been like. To brand officers like I am seeing here over one admittedly dumb mistake is every bit as bad as what these officers are being accused of.

          • Jim Marshall

            In fairness, the activities shown on this video would get you fired from most jobs. Not docked a vacation day, not consoling. You should not be a cop if you have that sort of temper. The reason “cop haters” exist is that cops allow and defend bad behavior, and treat each other differently under the law then they treat civilians. Civilians are required to know the law, cops, especially those that are based in hospitals like the university police were had a responsibility to know the law and this policy at this hospital. People see cops standing by while this nurse is manhandled and have a reaction to that. When cops start intervening when they see other cops breaking the law, you’ll have a point.

          • renegadesix

            The equivalent of doing this in the civilian world is failing to follow a written set of instructions. Joe Schmoe skipped instruction number two and the widget he was building didn’t pass QA. You don’t get fired for that unless you do it a lot.

            Cops do intervene when other cops break the law. Cops arrest cops. Don’t believe me? Do a youtube search. The videos are there.

            This is an argument over a memorandum of understanding between a hospital and a police deparmtent. This isn’t a case where one cop is beating the brakes off of a handcuffed suspect. How the heck is a junior patrol officer supposed to know better than a detective or a lieutenant?

            When YOU have picked up a gun and badge and walked a beat, then maybe you’ll be qualified to have an opinion. Until then, you’re just another cop hater jumping on a band waggon.

          • Jim Marshall

            Wrong, and this is the problem with most cops. They refuse to accept civilian authority. That you view physical assault and yelling and losing your temper as the same thing as missing a checkbox on a form is telling. Calling a middle aged man a “junior patrolman” who is not accountable for his behavior is also telling. That rigid, mindless hierarchy has not existed in the real world for quite some time. I don’t want to hear about the only people who are allowed to decide how to police are the police. That’s nonsense. We all watched while your brothern applauded trump when he called for police brutality. You need to follow the law, and submit fully to civilian authority.

          • renegadesix

            Let’s see, about the only civilian equivalents I can think of are security guard and bouncer. What other civilian jobs are you aware of that require you to use force against other people?

          • Jim Marshall

            Thats the whole point, he was not required to use force at all even if he thought he had a right to that blood. A cop can’t order someone else to do a job. She was not physically blocking him. You are not required to help the police. You should not be using force against someone because you don’t like what they have to say. You can use force if they are breaking the law and need to be arrested, self defense, or they are actually Impeding an investigation. The threshold for getting a conviction for impeding an investigation is rather high. Either a security guard or a bouncer would be fired for this conduct. And I would argue a bartender has a higher stress job than a cop, security guard or bouncer. They are typically dealing with all sorts of nasty, drunk folks, are generally unarmed, and do a much better job at solving problems without using force or ever involving security, bouncers, or the police.

          • renegadesix

            No, that isn’t the point. One part of a police officer’s job description is to put hands on those he thinks are violating the law and resisting his efforts to enforce the law. A factory worker has no such job description. A burger flipper has no such job description. An accountant has no such job description. Get the picture yet? Putting hands on lawbreakers is a vital and regular part of a police officer’s job. So when he makes a mistake, it is likely to be in that area. When you say, “a civilian would get….for putting his hands on someone” well, no kidding skippy because a civilian is NEVER supposed to put his hands on someone as part of his job (other than those rare exceptions I mentioned previoulsy).

            A bartender calls a cop or a bouncer when someone gets that far out of hand so…

          • Jim Marshall

            “he thinks is violating the law”, we need to inject a “reasonable person” standard there. There was no danger here, this cop was not acting reasonably when determining she broke a law. He should be betting his job if he is going to make an arrest under those circumstances.

          • renegadesix

            Do stick to the point. Tell me how your job requires you to put hands on someone?

            But off on your tangent, it is actually the “reasonable officer” standard that is applied to cops. Also, the standard in the civil context is arguable probable cause — it doesn’t even take full probable cause for an officer to get qualified immunity. And again, I am not saying these guys weren’t wrong in arresting the nurse. What I am saying is that they made a mistake that they will pay for, but aren’t the evil satan worshippers you are painting them to be.

          • Jim Marshall

            What did this officer do to de-escate? Why the temper? None of that is called for and civilians have both the right, and the authority via who they elect to decide how they want to be policed. It should be quite clear to officers that they need to keep their tempers in check and treat others with respect. People do not want hot headed officers, and people are demanding to be treated respectfully. If you cannot do these things in a non emergency situation as this was, you have no business being a cop. Where was the danger? Where was the cause for the temper and disrespect? Treating folks as these officers treated this nurse is pretty satanic to tell the truth. There should be shame involved not making excuses.

          • renegadesix

            One more time, I am not defending this officer’s handling of this nurse. He is going to pay the price for what he did. Stick to the point — when you make a mistake doing a regular part of your job, do anonymous internet twits second guess you? Do you get fired for it?

          • Jim Marshall

            Yeah, look at the consequences for a Apple Engineer who makes a minor mistake. Look at most top tier companies. They don’t tolerate poor performers period.

          • renegadesix

            They don’t fire for a first mistake, either.

          • Jim Marshall

            Nonsense, Jobs fired many, many people for their first mistake. For instance, he fired a kid who gave Wozniak details of an upcoming product without authorization. Any top tier employeer has, and enforces standards. You will be fired from most good public facing jobs for showing disrespect towards a client or customer. There is zero tolerance for that sort of thing in a lot more private companies than police forces.

          • renegadesix

            There are always asshole bosses. But as a general rule, zero tolerance is not practiced in corporate America. The work force is not that big.

          • Jim Marshall

            Wow, read “good vs great”. Any top tier organization has standards that are not violated. Among the best organization, zero tolerance, especially when it comes to how you treat clients and customers is the norm.

          • renegadesix

            Glad I don’t work for such organizations. As a mere human, I make mistakes. Do tell, when and how did you become a deity — infallable and perfect in all that you do? Maybe you should teach perfection instead of ranting about the failings of others on the internet?

          • Jim Marshall

            Again, not all mistakes are equal. Mistakes that reflect badly on your brand or public image will be dealt with harshly as they should, no matter where you work. Treating that nurse with such attitude and disrespect is not a “mistake”. It is not hard to treat others with dignity and respect when you have a public facing position. He made a choice to behave disrespectfully, he made a choice to escalate, he made a choice to use force. There was not danger in this encounter for the cop, he had a set of choices he made and it is reasonable that we require cops to behave respectfully, especially in situations where there is no danger. A cop is a customer service position whether you like it or not, you should be good with people or not be a cop. IF you lose your s___ over and administrative dispute, what do you think you will do when there is real stress and danger?

          • renegadesix

            You do understand that the evidence in blood is perishable, right? What if this cop HAD been right? Suppose he had a warrant and this nurse was trying to prevent him from getting the blood evidence. Suppose further that she went so far as to lock the patient’s door and stick the key in her panties.

            The clock is ticking. The evidence in the blood is diminishing with every second you spend on that nurse.

            Would the officer have been justified in using even more force than was used here to get that key and get access to the victim to carry out the court-ordered testing?

            Change the facts slightly and the exact same conduct that you are bemoaning here is the 100% right thing to do. It isn’t the conduct that is the problem here, but the failure to understand that he wasn’t in the right. That is a minor mistake. Cops are not Supreme Court justices. In most cases they aren’t lawyers. They are usually people with a high school diploma attempting to apply difficult legal concepts in a dynamic environment — far more stressful than your jewlrey counter girl or Apple Store “Genius”.

          • Jim Marshall

            He didn’t have a warrant, this was not a suspect. The nurse was not locking a door. He should treat folks respectfully regardless. This was his area of expertise in any case. He drives an ambulance on the side, he draws blood for a living. We expect the genius at the apple bar to at least have common sense and treat people respectfully. An HR rep may not have more than a high school diploma in some cop and they may be dealing with difficult legal concepts in a dynamic environment, we we expect them to behave professionally. This cop was never in any danger, and had no reason to believe his life or anyone else’s life was in danger. That throws out the “you don’t know the danger cops are under” idea. The set of choices this cop faced was not unlike the set of choice many face on job.

          • renegadesix

            Don’t like hypotheticals that defuse your moral indignation, do you? The only difference between my hypothetical and this case is the legal correctness of the officer. The force used isn’t the error. The detention isn’t the error. The error is his understanding of the law. If misunderstanding the law was a termination offense we should fire every judge who gets overturned on appeal.

          • Jim Marshall

            Judges don’t generally use force, and when they make big public mistakes or use poor judgement (see the Brock Turner case) there almost always is a movement to remove them. (Half of the supreme court in CA was removed by the voters in the 70’s)

          • renegadesix

            Federal judges (district and up) are on the bench for life. They can’t be voted off the bench and can only be impeached (a rare occurrence). They routinely put people in prison. They can order an immediate arrest. I’ve seen a federal judge put a lawyer in jail for two days for being an hour late to a hearing. They may not directly use force, but they certainly order others to do it.

          • Jim Marshall

            They still go one way or the other if it is public enough, or more typically they lose the ability to hear either all cases or certain kinds of cases. Anyone in any job making a public mistake that brings disrepute to their employer is going to be dealt with these days.

          • renegadesix

            Seriously, dude, are you just writing whatever comes to your head? A federal judge who gets the law wrong just gets reversed. Nothing else. No amount of howling from the public will ever result in anything bad happening to him. They are given lifetime appointments for that very reason — to insulate them from the lynchmobs like the one that you are a part of here.

          • Jim Marshall
          • renegadesix

            Did you miss the part where it mentioned he was a CANADIAN judge? We are talking about US law here. Nice try.

          • Jim Marshall

            An officer needs to understand that putting your hands on someone else is a serious business, and if you are putting your hands on someone else when your life is not in danger, and no one else’s life is in danger, you should be betting your job that you are right. Cops should think very, very carefully about “contempt of cop” types of arrests. If you are making them, you’d better be able to get a conviction or you should be removed from the force. That the police do not treat putting hands on someone very, very seriously is a problem.

          • renegadesix

            Officers do understand that, which is precisely why I believe that these guys thought they were in the right at the time they did it.

            Cops routinely put their hands on people when lives are not at risk. Do you think handcuffs miraculously appear on a person’s wrists? Any time you effectuate an arrest you put hands on someone, and only rarely does the situation involve a risk to life.

            Really guy, the more you comment the more you demonstrate you know nothing about the law or police work. Seriously, take a time out. Go take a justice and public safety class or just spend some time on Google if you can’t afford an education.

          • Jim Marshall

            Again, police are under civilian authority. You cannot police in any manner you see fit. You are the publics employee’s. You need to show respect and behave as such. I am a veteran, and I could not conduct myself in any way I saw fit. I know what danger is buddy, more so than you. This was a contempt of cop arrest, a particular subset of arrest that cops already know are under close scrutiny as they should be. If you make this sort of arrest and you are wrong, you should lose your job.

          • renegadesix

            And where did I say cops can “police in any manner [they] see fit?” There are laws that govern the conduct of law enforcement officers, but they are not as hamstrung nor as suicidal as you apparently believe them to be. Thank goodness for that.

            And no, pal, you don’t know danger more than me. You pulled the wrong card. I was a soldier before I ever thought of becoming a cop or a lawyer — 3 days out of high school and on a bus for Fort Benning. 11B, 11C, and 11M. The only enlisted infantry MOS I didn’t have was 11H, but if you put a TOW on a Bradley I can shoot the hell out of it. Spent some time working on 18E although I didn’t get the tab. Combat vet as well. Used my VEAP to get my undergrad degree and went to law school from there.

            Beame a cop because I missed the active life and wanted to do something for my community. Went to SWAT school and served on a TAC team and commanded it for a short period of time. Most of the guys I served with were infantry vets as well looking for the same things I was.

            You’re screwing with the wrong guy. Been there, done that, and went a helluva lot farther than you ever did based upon your utter contempt for law enforcement. You haven’t got the first clue what you are talking about, nor will you ever until you pick up a badge and a gun and walk a beat.

          • Jim Marshall

            And you should not become a cop because you “missed the active life”. You are not an occupying force. You should love the constitution. You should get along with and have respect for the people you are serving and you should be serving them. We are not serving you. You are an employee, do you conduct yourself as such? To you treat every person you encounter with respect. I also suspect you do not “walk a beat”. Police Unions have fought community policing and walking beats with incredible ferocity. They believe in “aggressive policing” not community policing. A huge difference. There should be no element of “Machismo” or any such nonsense in law enforcement. You are not fighting a war. You are supposed to be there to protect and serve, not to relive the glory days of the military.

          • renegadesix

            LOL. So, anyone who doesn’t want a desk job, who wants to be out doing things instead of pushing papers or talking on a phone shouldn’t be a cop? You’ll forgive me if I don’t accept the prerequisites that a cop hater has established for what makes a good cop.

            FYI, I was all the other things you are talking about. Because I was a lawyer I respected the Constitution AS WRITTEN (which means, not how someone like you interprets it to be). I treated everyone with respect until they required me to not treat them with respect (like shooting at me, running from me after being told they were under arrest, fighting me, etc.) and then went back to treating them with as much respect as they would allow me to treat them once they were secured.

            Oh, and I was NEVER part of a union. Can’t stand unions.

            There is absolutely room in law enforcement for aggressiveness. You cannot back down when a guy is threatening to come with a gun and shoot his girlfriend’s parents. You cannot turn and run when a guy high on PCP or spice or whatever other substance is terrorizing his neighborhood and comes charging at your partner. When a guy is threatening to kill himself with a gun and you have a chance to come up behind him and take him out with a TASER before he decides to suicide by cop, or actually pull the trigger, you’re darned right aggression helps you make the right decision. You don’t pack up and go home when someone in a mobile home park has barricaded himself in his trailer and is taking pot shots at you with a 30.06 because he is drunk and pissed off at his wife.

            You say these idiotic millquetoast things becaue you have never been in any of the above situations as a cop. I have. Every last one of them — including risking my life to save a drunken fool with a pistol to his head.

            Believe it or not, it is possible to ascertain when aggression is called for — turn it on and off — without acting like an occupying force. Maybe you don’t have that ability, and maybe that’s why you never became a cop (or perhaps it was your criminal record). In any case, there are plenty of us who can and do every single day.

          • Jim Marshall

            Come on man, the Police Unions control Police Departments. They have a lot more real power than police chiefs, civilian boards or anyone else. And they will do anything to hold onto that power. (See the costa mesa police union)

          • renegadesix

            I happen to live in a right to work state. The unions have no power here.

          • Jim Marshall

            Secondly, cops and the law enforcement system judge civilians on the basis of a single incident, why should civilians give cops a pass?

          • renegadesix

            This isn’t a violation of criminal law. This is a mistake in APPLYING the criminal law…really in applying criminal procedure. Civilians don’t apply the criminal law to others in their jobs. They never run the risks that cops run. That’s why.

          • medbob

            Yes, the question was so ignorant that one of the cops asked the other one about it. You may understand what they were trying to do, but I do not. Every action that is taken must be consistent with law and proper morality and ethics. Just being in “Evidence Gathering Mode” seems to indicate that they were on auto-pilot, and trying to mow down any resistance to their gathering efforts. They then meet resistance and instead of evaluating it, they try to plow it over, hurting people in the process. No, this is an exact portrait of bad cops who are corrupt. If you do not see the corruption inherent in this situation, you need to recalibrate your ethics detector!!

          • renegadesix

            Got it. Any cop who makes a mistake about the law is automatically corrupt. So, tell me, does that apply to you and your job? If YOU make a mistake does that make YOU corrupt? Or, more likely, does it just make you wrong in that particular circumstance?

            These guys were WRONG about forcing the issue here. They thought they were right. They know better now. That doesn’t make them corrupt, that makes them human.

          • medbob

            No, they did not “make a mistake”. They assaulted a nurse. That is a criminal action. As for my job in a hospital, I have responsibilities to stay well versed in current methods and policies and procedures of my organization. There are some mistakes I can make on numbers in a spreadsheet that would be akin to misspelling on a report. Other mistakes I could make could result in death of a patient. therefore I MUST exhibit excellence in my performance and must follow the procedures and protocols to the letter and to a T.
            This was not a minor mistake. This is a situation where the two officers in direct focus, and the other three in the area had an absolute burden to their departments and to the badge to be absolutely right.
            They completely failed the excellence test by an unforced error. Had they stayed current with their knowledge, they would have known about the recent SCOTUS case. Had they merely stepped back and asked the question “It is proper to arrest a Nurse doing her job?” the answer is quite obvious.
            No, they allowed their emotions to affect their judgement. That was at the point of the mistake. You add in the conversations before and after, where the detective states that he can’t get a warrant, where he mentions his part time job and the proposition that he would change his decisions in that job, the bull-headed inability to assimilate additional information, the pushing over the line of individual rights and professional lines, all of that adds up to corruption. When you violently take the rights of an innocent person, that is a corrupt action.

          • renegadesix

            No, they did not allow their emotions to affect their judgment. If they were right about the law they did what they were supposed to do — remove an obstacle to their efforts to obtain the evidence. However, it turns out that they were wrong about the law.

            Again, I invite you to consider the case of the Georgia nurse who impeded officers attempting to execute an arrest warrant. Not only was she placed in handcuffs, but she was tased for resisting. The officers were in the right legally that time and did worse to that nurse. Two nurses resisting, one gets manhandled worse than the other, but one turns out to have been right about the law. Why is it that the Utah officers “allowed their emotions to affect their judgment,” but the Georgia officers did not?

            The answer to any thinking person is that neither group of officers allowed their emotions to cloud their judgment. It just turns out that the nurse was right in this incident and wrong in the other.

            Making a mistake is not corruption.

          • avei

            I think you need to review the available record. You have attempted to ascribe dark motivations to an innocent nurse by speculating that she had a recent adverse experience with the police.

            On the bodycam record, Lt. Tracy can be seen discussing with the hospital authorities, that he has had trouble with the hospital in these matters in the past. What that is, we don’t know, but from Det. Payne’s comments, it appears to revolve around blood draws without adequate authorization acceptable to the hospital, for which a policy was made.

            There is no clear evidence available to the public that the nurse, this nurse had any adverse experiences, held grudges, or malice toward the police.

            There is, on the other hand, at least some record that Lt. Tracy has ongoing frustration with hospital policy and this was a source of irritation with Det. Payne as well. The two officers escalated the situation and Det. Payne stated that he would use his position as ambulance driver to at least annoy the hospital, if not attempt to financially harm it.

            I think there is at least probable cause to believe that the two officers did allow their animosity toward the hospital to cloud their judgement. Then they acted. Finally, Lt. Tracy came to the realization that they were not going to be able to make their arrest stick, but continued to threaten the nurse with further potential criminal charges prior to releasing her from custody. If there is corroborating evidence, then I submit that this may rise to at least a preponderance of evidence.

          • renegadesix

            My clearly identified and admitted speculation as to the nurse’s motives is based on one thing, her failure to tell the officers that blood had already been drawn. When you look at the complete record you see the statement that they would not have pushed the issue if they had known blood had already been drawn.

            And, in addition to what I argued elsewhere with you, the fact that the staff subsequently revealed that blood had already been drawn shows 1) that the information was available; and 2) that the hospital agrees with me that simply revealing that a blood test had been done is not a HIPAA vioation.

          • avei

            No they don’t agree with you. If in fact, they did tell law enforcement that blood had been drawn in the course of medical care, then they have admitted a violation of HIPAA. You, as a law enforcement officer, are not a covered entity. Health care workers, be they physicians, nurses, ambulance drivers, administrators or clerks, are. And if they convey even one word of the medical record, by any means with authorization, it is a violation.

          • medbob

            They had a warrant. Where was Detective Payne’s warrant? Oh, I guess he not only didn’t have one, he reckoned that he would not be able to get one. Since he could not convince a judge that he had legal authority to take that action, he figured it would be easier to bully the nurse. She called his bluff, which he did not have the good sense to back out of.
            In the case of a nurse standing in the way of a warrant, she was obviously in the wrong and could easily determine at the time that she was in the wrong.
            Making a mistake is not corruption, but KNOWING that you cannot convince a judge of your right to perform a police duty, and turning on a Nurse IS corruption, and corruption most foul.

          • renegadesix

            That thing that flew over your head was my point. You are deducing an evil motive from conduct that is actually lesser than than the Georgia incident. The only difference between the two is the officers were wrong about the law here.

            So, let me try this another way, you cannot base a decision of bad motive based upon nothing more than actions that, if the officers had been right about the law, would have been justified.

          • medbob

            And you miss my point which was A WARRANT. If I place the two before you, arresting a nurse and taking the 20 minutes necessary to obtain a warrant, which is the moral and ethical choice?
            My deduction is based upon the choice that they made and the words that they used. If they had good cause to obtain a specimen, then they would have been able to convince a judge of that fact.

          • avei

            They new better then too. At least one of them did. He was fully trained in it, or if not, he has a cause of action against his former moonlight employer. If his Lt. wasn’t aware, he has an affirmative duty to inform him of the law, and he didn’t. If he had, and his Lt. continued on an improper path, then it is on Lt. Tracy’s head.

          • renegadesix

            If you are talking about training in HIPAA I have already demonstrated you are wrong. What you seem to be unaware of is the fact that the department has admitted to changing its own policy after this incident to match that of the hospital. It therefore appears that the officers were following their own department’s policy as it existed at the time. And that makes it appear as if the department is throwing the officers under the bus for following the policy of the department.

          • avei

            It now appears following the release of investigative reports, that the officers were not following their departments own policies. The most critical policy violation was “misdemeanor citations should be used instead of an arrest whenever possible.” This policy was not included in the changed policy.

            These policemen manhandled a citizen doing her job. You have not demonstrated that I am wrong, and the law on this is clear. I was not unaware that the department admitted to changing its policy to bring it into compliance with the law.

            The law gives the HIPAA covered entity the sole decision making authority on whether to grant a law enforcement request, and it must base that determination on whether or not the request is in the patient’s best interests, in its professional judgement. In this case, it determined that Lt. Tracy and Det. Payne’s requests and demands were not in the patients’ best interest and denied their requests. The law gives the hospital and the nurse and the doctors that authority. If law enforcement disagrees with that determination, as it was explained patiently and repeatedly, it is free to go get a warrant.

          • Sean L. Allen

            You never provided any…nice try though…LOL

          • David Jewell

            Not sure if you have worked in a hospital or been admitted to a hospital. I have worked in one as well as been a patient several times. One of the first things done when being admitted or arrival at the ER is that blood is drawn. All the officers had to do was ask if the Hospital had drawn blood samples for testing.

          • renegadesix

            You are wrong in this case. Apparently they didn’t do the blood draw until after the officers asked to do it themselves according to the latest stories. Wonder why that was?

          • VaHam

            I have not verified your claim but if that is the case; maybe they were busy trying to save the truck driver/reserve officers life, as a result of his burns which were to the naked eye the cause of his dire circumstance. The bullying dance the police were playing out with the charge nurse I am sure did not aid in trying to save the VICTIM in any way whether or not it harmed him is another question.

          • renegadesix

            Funny, others here claim that’s the first thing they do in the ER — draw blood. I tend to go along with you on this — that they were trying to save his life first — because every time I have been to the ER a blood draw was way down on the priority list.

            The thing that went flying over your head was my point. Why didn’t the nurse simply say, “we have already drawn blood?” If she had done that instead of playing ER lawyer, perhaps the officers would have done what they did later and say, “oh, you did? OK.” End of scenario. The officers were wrong to force the issue, but why couldn’t the nurse have simply provided the information they were looking for earlier?

          • VaHam

            The thing flying over your head is the law. Can you say HIPPA? She is not allowed to say anything about a patient’s treatment to anyone other than the patient or someone who has been authorized by the patient unless ordered by a court. Where is it you practice law?

          • Sean L. Allen

            Dear God thank you…he is obviously not anywhere close to beiing associated with law. HIPPA is obviously flying well over his intellect; dare I say you are more patient than I am. You must be a court appointed lawyer with your Job-esque patience…LOL

          • renegadesix

            Dear God, learn the law before you play cheerleader.

          • medbob

            HIPAA is not at play here. There is an exemption built in for medical/police communications.

          • avei

            Not without a warrant or administrative order. The exemption is quite specific as is the process. I do not believe it would apply in this situation.

          • renegadesix

            The fact that blood was drawn is NOT protected health information under HIPAA. What the test REVEALS is HIPAA protected. Again, you have proven you do not understand the law.

          • VaHam

            And can you show where she is under any obligation to volunteer information? She is in fact only allowed to divulge information to law enforcement under certain circumstances in response a lawful request. Did any officer ever ask whether blood had already been drawn?

          • renegadesix

            Once again, when a normal person who has already done something that someone else is trying to do is confronted with that fact, they will normally say, “I have already done it,” rather than get into an argument. Why didn’t the nurse deescalate the situation herself? Is she not a professional too?

          • VaHam

            Do you have any evidence that she did not volunteer that information at first contact? I know I don’t since the body camera video, I have seen thus far, doesn’t go back to first contact. I can see why that may have been unacceptable to Det. Payne and Lt. Tracy, even if she had thought to mention that in the middle of her regular job trying to save lives. Det. Payne gave away a clue when the officer with the body cam asked “why do’t we just go get a warrant” and it sounded to me like he responded that they didn’t have anything and the watch commander had told him that if she didn’t do as he asked to arrest her. That seems odd to me in light of the big show Lt. Tracy made about being able to get a warrant after his arrival. I have faith that all the text messages between officers as this developed will be looked at during the investigation. Lt. Tracy also provided some insight to his feeling about the hospital and it policies in general he spoke to one of the other hospital staff and said something to the effect of….”there is a very bad habit up here of your policy interfering with my law”.

          • renegadesix

            Yes. The subsequent statements by the officer that they wouldn’t have pushed the issue if they had known. You want to quote the officers when it suits your hatred, but you don’t want to take them at their word when they say this. Why?

          • VaHam

            In this instance with these officers I do not trust them; that is simply my opinion, it will be up to others as to whether they do or not.

          • avei

            Any part of the medical record is PHI. This would include all orders for testing, imaging, medications or procedures. The fact that blood was or was not drawn, is part of the medical record, along with the purpose for the blood draw. Your comment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and supporting regulations. This was further clarified in the HITECH act of Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The statutory definition of health information and individually identifiable health information is as follows:
            “Health Information means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that–
            (A) is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and
            (B)relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of any individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.” 45 CFR 160.103 and HITECH Act Section 13400 Subd. D.
            An order to draw blood, whether written or verbal is information related to health care. It is as protected as the results of that test. Often, an order for a test can reveal sensitive information.

            According to what we have seen and heard, this was not a forensic investigation, there was no one (except, of course the nurse) under arrest, and there was no warrant, nor was there a written administrative order or subpoena. The above definition would have certainly been in any HIPAA training received by Det. Payne in his capacity as an ambulance driver.

          • renegadesix

            They weren’t asking for a copy of the ORDER, and I never said the nurse should have provided the ORDER. Five little words, “we have already drawn blood.” Nothing about the order. No copy of the order. Just the fact that blood was drawn. NONE of that is violative of HIPAA.

          • avei

            Now you are being really obtuse. The fact that blood was drawn or not is part of the medical care. That very fact is PHI. It cannot be revealed. The order authorizes it. It is protected. The draw is part of the medical record, whether or not it was recorded in the chart. Therefore the fact that it was or was not drawn or ANY OTHER PART of this patient’s care is protected health information.

            You can split the hairs on a gnats behind any way you want. But when you walk into a physician’s office, from the moment you’ve given the receptionist your name to the minute you walk out of that office, anything said or done related to that care is protected, including the fact that blood was drawn. And yes it does violate HIPAA. You have repeatedly stated that you feel they should have been provided with information generated in the course of care, which under the definitions and ALJ findings in other matters is protected.

            Let’s say you walk into my office as a patient, for care. I order a blood test for valid reasons related to your health care. Your wife who was not present and is not on the HIPAA list asks me where you went. I am not at liberty to tell her anything. Suppose I did. He went to get blood drawn. Why? I have now revealed protected health information and if she asks you why you had your blood drawn, you are in a spot of explaining that I felt the bump on your prostate and am worried about cancer. Or lying to your wife. It is for these reasons ALL care related information is PROTECTED.

          • bacchys

            Lt. Tracy, later in the video, tells Payne that the hospital had already drawn blood. As they never asked, they weren’t aware of it prior to arresting her.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            They can ask however HIPPA laws a FEDERAL LAW FORBIDS the Nurse from saying ANYTHING.

          • VaHam

            I want a lot of things like all the money in a bank but I do not have the right to go in and take it by force.

          • Sean L. Allen

            Dude read bacchys comments just above you….

            Common sense should tell you that hospitals routinely do tox screens before they even start treating you. They need to know what is in your system especially when you´re not conscious to answer. Stop blindly rubber stamping every police action.

          • renegadesix

            Except that isn’t true. And if it were, why didn’t the nurse just tell the cop it was drawn? Don’t say HIPAA because it doesn’t apply here as evidenced by the hospital’s subsequent revealing of that very information.

          • medbob

            They apparently were not thinking about much. The worst part of this is the method used, “Interfering with an investigation” which is used by a plethora of corrupt cops to compel actions that would not be legal. In this case, the WORD of the nurse was “Interfering”. In actuality, the LAW was interfering, but none of the oathbreakers on scene would stand up for the innocent nurse.
            This is a portrait of the worst of Abuse of Authority. The fact that it directly involves a veteran of over 20+ years is a travesty. You have to wonder how many times they used this bludgeon to get their way and it worked?

          • renegadesix

            Why don’t you try to answer the question I asked instead of rambling on with your hatred of cops?

          • medbob

            I LOVE cops. I hate oathbreakers. Non-Hackers need to be identified and removed before they sully the badge in such a manner.
            As for the question, you have asked a number of them…

          • renegadesix

            Your words demonstrate otherwise. As for my questions, pick one and we will go from there. All you are doing at this point is repeating the same thing over and over again … “cops bad”. “Cops corrupt”. Etc. ad nauseum.

          • medbob

            These two are. I have also answered many of your questions, however you are unwilling to accept the obvious answers. You are locked into a defense of the indefensible actions of these two officers and the inaction of the uniforms around him.

          • renegadesix

            I must have missed it, do point me to where you answered any of my questions in general, and more specifically where you answered my question of why didn’t the nurse defuse this situation by telling the officers blood had or would be drawn?

          • medbob

            How would she have known that this would defuse the situation? Isn’t it perfectly obvious to a medic in an ambulance service that blood would be drawn as part of the patient intake for an auto accident and especially a burn patient? Are you trying to argue that she was maliciously omitting giving a complete account of the patient’s care? Nurses are trained to not volunteer information due to HIPAA requirements. The argument that you are trying to make here is as vapid as the suggestion that the police were sincere in applying the “interfering” doctrine. Why did she not tell Detective Payne that she has a dog? It had nothing to do with his alleged attempt to obtain a specimen.

          • renegadesix

            Come on, man. Seriously? How would she have known? How about the fact that they were asking her to draw blood or let them do it? Good grief man. You demand execellence in others but then make an argument like this?

          • medbob

            There is no excellence or non-excellence in not answering a question that was not asked. An equally valid question would be, Why did Detective Payne, having the word “Detective” in his title, not ask if other specimens had been drawn from this patient? Both questions are out of the stream with regard to circumstances. They fall into the same category as questions such as “How long have you been beating your wife.” They both are not germane to the point.
            They also ignore the question of “Chain of Custody” which has not been raised in this discussion. That would be an element that would make the proposed specimen “different”.

          • renegadesix

            What the heck does “excellence” have to do with this? You talk about common sense elsewhere, well, this is common sense. If someone comes to you after you cleaned your office and says, “I want you to clean your office,” do you not tell them, “I just did?”

            It is common freaking sense to tell someone you have already done what they are asking you to do.

          • medbob

            And equally, it should be freaking common sense for the Detective to ask if they had already obtained a specimen, but you are also ignoring the fact that she was restrained from giving him that specimen also WITHOUT A WARRANT. Either way, he would have to go to a judge and provide him just cause why he wanted a specimen.

          • medbob

            “You demand execellence in others but then make an argument like this?”

            And they did NOT do what they were asking to be done, as there is no Chain of Custody on the previously collected samples. They were asking to be allowed to take a specimen. New specimen or old specimen, you don’t get one until you produce a warrant.

          • avei

            I beg to differ. The Lt., kneeling at the car stated that if the police were wrong, there were civil remedies. He also cited his knowledge of 22 plus years [which is wrong] that he had the right to do as he pleased, and that the woman was obstructing justice. Their motives are unclear, but the Lt, at least, was thinking about a lawsuit, and used that thought to further attempt to intimidate a citizen who not only knew the law, sought counsel of her superiors, and protected another helpless citizen.
            So, if Lt. Tracy is fond of breaking the law, as it appears he is, and he knows there are civil remedies for his willful breaking the law, I say let the games begin.

          • renegadesix

            There are civil repercussions. The lawsuit he was talking about was a lawsuit against him for what he was doing, not protecting the pursuing agency from a lawsuit by the trucker. You came into this conversation late, but it is the trucker’s lawsuit that we were talking about.

          • avei

            I thought we were talking about a police officer demanding a blood specimen from an unconscious patient, reacting to a refusal of his request, which is now the subject of a criminal investigation and has two policemen relieved of duty. Of course Lt. Tracy would be the defendant. The trucker’s cause of action (or lack thereof) theoretical. The arrest of the nurse is not.

          • disqus_kyoTUItUKa

            I’m pretty sure they were giving him NEW BLOOD because of the loss he incurred in the wreck , thus diluting the Possible Alcohol or Drugs in his system below the standard 0.08 of being DRUNK

          • bacchys

            I haven’t seen anything reported about him losing blood in the wreck or being given a blood transfusion. However, in the ordinary course of treating emergency patients, especially unconscious ones, a tox screen is done. IOW, they draw blood so they can run tests to see what they’re dealing with. If he, for example, were taking medications which don’t co-exist well with other medications, they’d want to know that before treating him.
            So the odds are the hospital will have already done what the police want done, and so it would be readily available if the victim needs it to protect himself from a lawsuit (very unlikely) or if the police need it pursuant to a warrant (also unlikely).
            Utah’s “implied consent” law requires the police to have probable cause to think he was driving under the influence. It’s not anyone involved in an accident, ever, but where the police have actual facts which would lead a reasonable person to conclude a crime was committed. In this case, driving under the influence. If you’re stopped at a red light and someone plows into you, that’s not probable cause to compel a blood draw. If you’re driving normally in your lane and some perp fleeing the police cross into your lane and hits you head on, that’s not probable cause. The cop can be heard on the tape telling another cop he doesn’t have probable cause to justify a warrant.

          • Frank2525

            They had, according to the investigation report, but that nurse kept the officer sitting for over 90 minutes, without telling him anything. Have you ever run into a petty tyrant, in waiting rooms. I have, in my 87 years of life, as I just ranted at Jerry.
            She played the “I am the charge nurse, and you are not touching my patient”?. Seen this before, and wager others have too. (added note: On media they showed 19 minutes of video time. But in the small, printed, investigation, when Police Investigates, there was statement of that officer held for over 90 minutes, without being told anything).

          • bacchys

            So what? He didn’t have any basis for compelling a blood draw. Whether he waited ten minutes or ten hours, he didn’t have any legal basis to demand she allow him to draw the patient’s blood.

            Her telling him he can’t touch the patient is her job. That’s what she’s supposed to do.

          • Frank2525

            So what’s your beef. Looks like you just love to create a fuss. Well, I suspect we will see some changes as soon as Donald gets his selections confirmed, and you will start seeing law practiced under Constitution, and not by the whims of every horse back decision maker in each county, state, or government. You begin to look like a polyester wearing ambulance chasing lawyer to me, reading your beef with all of us.

          • bacchys

            I”m adding this response because I’ve watched more of the body cam footage, and Lt. Tracy, who told Payne to escalate the situation and then told the nurse she should have let Payne violate the law and her patient’s rights because of a bunch of stupid reasons that highlight the lawlessness and corruption in our law enforcement institutions, says that after arriving at the hospital he learned the hospital **had already drawn blood** which they would be to get a warrant for if they need it.

            IOW, his worthless Detective’s actions were completely unnecessary in addition to violating a bunch of laws. So were his.

            The Rigby Police Department, where the victim is a Reserve Officer, put out a statement thanking the nurse and the hospital for standing up for their officer’s rights. They said that protecting someone’s rights is an act of heroism. There were officers from at least two different agencies there at the hospital, and not a single one of them stood up for anyone’s rights that day or the days that followed.

          • medbob

            Any individual in Emergency Services who has half a brain in their head knows that in this situation, much blood AND a tox screen would have been drawn. Those specimens were in the lab and they could have taken even a day to subpoena those samples. No, the situation was being painted as exigent as part of the whole ruse of “Interfering”. They could not legally obtain the specimen, the hospital legally vetted policy did not allow for the specimen, and they did not anticipate being able to obtain a warrant, so they took the corrupt route and tried to bully their way into obtaining a specimen. IMHO, the watch commander knew as the situation developed that he was in too deep. They overplayed their hand, and the whole thing was ignored until the body cam footage was released by the Nurse’s Lawyer. It was then that everyone could see the illegal, immoral and unethical actions of these keystone cops.

          • Frank2525

            And as I read the TOT requirements for over the road drivers, when accident occurs, there are certain requirements within 8 hours and 24 hours. Now when Idaho Police contacted the Utah police and asked for that sample, it is fair to believe THERE WAS LACK OF COMMUNICATIONS. I will wait to see what comes out in Salt Lake Tribune in future on this, hoping case does not explode, but when over the road driver is involved (even as victim) I also know about the ambulance chasing lawyers, who can accuse a ham sandwich, so to speak. Had couple twist my words from discovery, and make me out to be someone I did not know, before the jury.

          • Jerry Mitchell

            Anytime an unconscious patient is brought to a trauma E.R. the hospital will do a blood draw within a very short period of time because the Doctors and Nurses have to know if they have something in their system that could interfere/react with any meds the doctors and nurses may give them….So the hospital ABSOLUTELY had a blood sample with the results retrievable as soon as there was a warrant, and they would have had the same sample 8 weeks later if that was how long it took to get the warrant and one would expect that the trained phlebotomist who assaulted the Nurse should have known this fact very well….The officers needlessly escalated the situation and now the taxpayers of Salt Lake City and the State of Utah will be paying Nurse Wubbels a nice pile of cash for her retirement and these 2 buffoons get a free paid vacation….As someone said above it appears to be a case of the Salt Lake City PD trying to help Utah State Police/Logan PD find a scapegoat for a crash they arguably caused….

          • bacchys

            Well said.
            Even if we assume they truly believed there was a valid reason for a blood draw, a simple question could have settled the whole thing: have you guys drawn blood for a tox screen?
            Instead, he was ranting about being told “no.”

          • TKpeterGunn

            Being told no was the real issue that lead to the arrest

          • BJR1961

            They would have taken blood samples upon admission. “New blood” would not have the effect you are thinking of, but the blood taken upon admission would be fine. And Payne could easily have waited for those results, once he got the search warrant. He knew he was trying to break the law, and was angry that it wasn’t working.

          • Frank2525

            What I see was “There was a lack of communication from the nurse, with statement blood had been drawn already”, by hospital when patient was admitted. This was not Payne’s first time to draw blood, and would know Utah law as taught in the specialized course to be so designated. I see a petty tyrant nurse who displayed her temper.

          • steve

            Guilty until proven innocent? Is that the NEW way it works in this country?

          • avei

            There was no need to try and force this. But, a tox screen done by the hospital is not evidence. Since a blood draw is handled by many staff, left in baskets unattended and unobserved, there is no chain of custody and labs have been known to occasionally mix up specimens.

          • bacchys

            A tox screen by a hospital is evidence. They also don’t leave blood samples laying around, unmarked They’re probably better at the chain-of-custody than most crime labs.

            Lt. Tracy even says later on Payne’s bodycam video that, had he known they had already drawn blood for a tox screen it would have happened differently because they could always get a warrant for that.

          • avei

            The control and labeling of the specimen may be better, but by design, most hospitals, particularly academic hospitals do not control chain of custody of specimens. They have a separate process for doing FAA and DoT physicals where drug screens are mandatory where they do follow CoC procedures, but not with clinical specimens. Clinical specimens are collected, labeled, placed in baskets or handed to messengers without a hand off log, where they could be tampered with and lawyers will use this to cast doubt on the specimen, and the lack of continuous custody en route to the lab and the machine. It may be evidence, but it is rebuttable.

          • bacchys

            Yet the watch commander clearly says if he’d known they had already drawn blood for that purpose he wouldn’t have been pushing for the blood draw.
            The hospital has as much or more interest in ensuring the sample is accurately identified with that patient as the police. Their purpose isn’t the same, of course, but they need to ensure that any medications they give him aren’t going to have an adverse reaction with anything else he may have taken. It’s not some slipshod hand-off.

          • medbob

            They could have gotten a warrant at any time. The expedited process in Utah is said to take 20 minutes. Payne himself said that they could not get a warrant because they did not have PC. Based on that statement, it is assumed that they didn’t try. Given that the Hospital Policy states that a warrant allows the draw, that would have resolved the issue.
            There was no exigency, as a warrant could have been easily either obtained or denied. Why would they not even try to get a warrant?
            We can’t assume that, but the most obvious answer was that a rejection of a warrant would have put an end to their attempt to achieve the goal of obtaining the specimen. The corruption here is that they were faced with the two paths of getting a warrant or arresting a nurse (their plan was apparently bullying the nurse). They CHOOSE to step on individual rights rather than to ask a judge to decide.

            And as for specimens drawn for labs, routine samples such as medical ER specimens are not drawn under Chain of Custody procedures. Those procedures require another document that is signed off by each individual who takes custody of the specimen. Such documentation is not routinely collected.

          • bacchys

            The courts don’t require that evidence has to be gathered under Chain of Custody procedures in order to be evidence. ER specimens taken for the purpose of medically determining what drugs or other chemicals are in a patient’s system aren’t handled randomly and, while they could be challenged, aren’t likely to get mixed up. They are reasonably sufficiently accurate with respect to who and what that they’re good evidence. IOW, a defense lawyer might be able to ask questions of the person introducing that evidence in to court, but it’s dubious he’d be able to get it excluded based on the lack of a chain of custody document.

            I think you’re right on why they didn’t pursue a warrant under the expedited procedures. Hell ,they could have even lied to the nurse and said they had one and she probably would have stepped out of the way. They could have lied and said he was under arrest, for that matter, and she’d have stepped out of the way.

        • ezemail

          It still would not be lawful, where is the probable cause? It’s clear after watching the video of the wreck that the truck driver was an innocent victim. The patient was not under arrest and there was no warrant. The police had no right to the patient’s blood.

          • renegadesix

            Never said it would be lawful. I am just explaining that there is another reason why they would want to preserve the evidence that is not the self-serving cop hatred I am reading here.

          • Liberal? Like Tom Jefferson!

            They had plenty of time to get a warrant in any case.
            And I’ve been a prosecutor my entire career, and unless they wanted the trucker’s blood in case of a possible civil suit by whomever against whomever, given the circumstances as described, I’m baffled as to why they wanted the blood.
            ERs automatically do blood draws when accident victims come in- they can’t really treat them properly unless they know what’s going on with them (medical conditions, drug/alcohol use, etc). Those lab results are entered into the patients’ records and easily subpoenaed (I’ve done it easily 100 times)- so,………… I’m at loss to explain why this LEO went bonzo.

          • renegadesix

            They wouldn’t get a warrant in this case because there was no PC to get the victim’s blood. Not sure about your jurisdiction, but in mine no judge would ever sign off on a warrant on a victim. And again, you are assuming that it had been done already — that sort of begs the question of why the officer wanted it. If you know the hospital has already done the blood draw, why push the issue? The fact that they pushed the issue suggests to me that it had not been drawn, or the officers did not think it had been drawn.

            I’ve been a civil defense attorney for nearly two decades with almost 15 years of it being in law enforcement liability. With the immunities available, and knowing cops as I do, there is no way in the world they would want the blood to protect against a lawsuit. The chances of the trucker prevailing are slim and none even if he was sober as a judge. Even if they had his blood with some substance in it, Utah is not a pure contributory negligence state so it would not do them much good in the event that the trucker was able to win.

            PLUS, you are opening yourself up to EASY claims for false arrest/imprisonment, excessive force (any force is excessive if the underlying arrest is false), state law battery, etc., if you are wrong about your right to the evidence. This nurse has a slam-dunk lawsuit now. If she chooses to sue the question isn’t if she will win, but how much she will win. Why would you expose yourself to near certain liability to try to bolster a civil suit you are nearly certain to win without the evidence?

            I don’t know why these guys pushed this issue either, but I doubt very seriously if it was lawsuit defense.

          • Liberalism is a Disease

            Exactly, they probably wouldn’t have got a warrant. This is a simple case of a cop trying to get his way when everyone involved knew that there was no legal justification for his request. The motive as to his actions is irrelevant. As the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” However, in this case, I question how good the intentions truly were.

          • renegadesix

            Most cop haters do assume a bad motive.

          • VaHam

            In this case there really IMHO can be only one of two reasons for the police’s actions either “bad motives” or ignorance of the law.

          • renegadesix

            We have established that what you think established the law here did not do so.

          • VaHam

            Perhaps that will be clarified in the criminal trial of these officers. Even the mayor has recognised the arrest and excessive use of force was unjust and thus a criminal trial is in order or at least it should be. Sorry I do not recognise your opinion as law; instead I will rely on SCOTUS.

          • renegadesix

            What you are relying on is your layman’s misunderstanding of how case law works. I have tried to educate you, but there are some who just will not learn. Oh well.

            Care to place a wager on whether there will be a criminal trial? While there technically could be one, I doubt very seriously if it will happen. In fact, the nurse does not seem much interested in filing a lawsuit, so it is doubtful that there will be a criminal prosecution.

            No, I am thinking that these guys will probably get some days off and then some refresher training when they get back. And you know what? That’s the right thing to do, because I doubt very seriously if any officer involved in this situation will ever make the same mistake again.

          • VaHam

            And that is why you have BLM blocking our streets and killing cops. Roughing up a nurse while she is on duty in an ER because she refused to violate hospital policy and the law goes way past a mistake IMHO. That kind of ego over common sense demonstrates a dangerous personality which has no place being in law enforcement.

          • renegadesix

            Roughing up? Oh come on. The most difficult part of her lawsuit if she chooses to file one will be showing more than de minimis injury. If you think this video justifies killing cops YOU are the sick individual.

          • VaHam

            For the record nothing justifies killing of cops. My point was that having them display their temper on a nurse doing her job well in the middle of a an ER only serves to stir up those who do cry out in favor of killing cops. It is for this reason I believe bending over backwards to try and justify the actions which any fool can see are just wrong is a poor way of supporting police IMHO.

          • renegadesix

            Do point out where I have ever said that the officers actions under the circumstances were justified? Once more, I am just not going to jump on your, “these guys are corrupt and evil” bandwaggon. You want to say they screwed up? I agree with you. You want to say that there should be repercussions for their screw up? I am with you. But if you are going to claim that because of ONE screw up these guys are evil and need to be executed, I am NOT with you.

          • VaHam

            Likewise please point out where I said these guys are evil or corrupt. I do think attempts to try and blame the nurse here are unfair and frankly ridiculous. Asking why she didn’t try to deescalate the obviously angry officer(s) by allegedly not answering questions the police had not asked. Defending bad actions is what gives the public the notion of the thin blue line being evil and unbreakable. Fair judgement by all is a much better answer.

          • renegadesix

            You seriously don’t think — particularly in light of the officers’ later statements on camera — that if the nurse had simply said, “we have already drawn blood” that this would have happened? She KNEW what they wanted, and she apparently KNEW that it had already been done. It is childish and idiotic to wait for the question to be asked. Nothing stopped her from volunteering the information that would have prevented this entire incident. If you weren’t such a cop hater you would see that.

            She does have some of the blame here. With five little words from her mouth NONE of this would have happened.

          • VaHam

            I don’t agree with you there if some officer walks in and say I want you to go draw blood from this patient and I say I can’t do that because of policy (which by the way has been proven to be correct) I might not even know that the blood which may have been drawn would be acceptable. And again why did they not ask? What obligation did she have to do their jobs for them?

            As long as were speculating (ex. “She KNEW”) I am making no accusations here but what if officers in this same situation knew they could not get a warrant later to get results do to a lack of probable cause, just demanded a draw be performed so they could walk away with the sample.

            What if they intentionally escalated the situation to bully there way and only after they realized they had gone to far and were not going to be successful; they decided to make a big show about getting a warrant and how that would have saved the day, at the end to cover their tracks.

          • renegadesix

            Now you are stretching. The blood wouldn’t be acceptable? Come on, man. It is from the same guy.

            We have already established that the officers were wrong. The sole examination here is why didn’t she tell them they had already drawn blood (assuming they had). Who cares why they didn’t ask her, we already know they screwed up.

            But she is a professional too, and five little words stops this from escalating. Nurses are trained in deescalation, yet she chose to play ER lawyer instead of being proactively cooperative. Why?

          • VaHam

            I see no reason the nurse should be well versed in chain of custody issues but from TV alone it might may me dismiss a test result from emergency tests done to save lives which is after all what her jobs is and that was being hampered by these unreasonable officers. The first time she told them she could not do as he asked he should have gone upstairs and found out who was in charge of the policy; instead they both Payne and Tracy chose to bully the nurse….why?

          • Sean L. Allen

            Way to move the goalposts. We all know what the officers eventually get has nothing to do with caselaw.

          • renegadesix

            I responded directly to him. I moved nothing.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            THis is the kind of cop that we “cop haters” hate. & Blue Lives Matter supports. I expect BLM to start a go fund me any second to defend this “persecuted” cop

          • Dylan Zwick

            I’m baffled as to why obtaining a blood draw from the victim of the car crash was a priority for the police. What were they thinking would be done with it? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just confused. I honestly don’t see another reason that makes sense except lawsuit defense, unlikely as you think that is.

            Oh, and you’re spot on about them not knowing the hospital had already done the blood draw. In the longer dash cam video the police officers actually discuss this, and the lieutenant says that, had he known blood had already been drawn, they wouldn’t have done what they did.

          • renegadesix

            Simple. Evidence preservation. They didn’t know the hospital had done a draw, and for all they knew he might die. You are trained to gather ALL the available evidence…particulrly where, as is the case with blood and metabolites…the evidence is highly perishable.

          • Sheep O’Doom

            When is it a crime to be hit by a speeding vehicle? Or was he burning without a permit? what crime do you porky suspect him of breaking?

          • renegadesix

            You are aware that the police gather evidence from victims too, right? Funny this should appear immediately below your idiotic rape post. Ever heard of a rape kit, cop hater? Let me educate you. It is a kit that allows for the collection of, among other things, DNA evidence from the person and clothing of the VICTIM. You don’t get a warrant for it. You don’t develop probable cause. The victim provides it to you to aid with prosecuting the perpetrator.

            You’re welcome.

          • VaHam

            Yes and when they do they are giving voluntary consent to search and seizure which is why no warrant is required. Of coarse this victim was comatose and unable to provide consent.

          • bacchys

            Care to point out examples of the forced collection of a rape kit?

          • VaHam

            Are they also trained to follow the law with regard to collection of evidence and the rights of individuals in the 4th amendment? The very point in question here, which is why the hospital policy had it right and the Salt Lake police did not, is covered by (SCOTUS 2016 Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425) Even though evidence is highly perishable that fact alone cannot be used to violate an individual’s rights; there must be other probable cause.

          • renegadesix

            Uh, actually, no. McNeely was about drawing blood from a SUSPECT in a DUI. The person at issue in this case was the victim of an accident and was not a suspect. Consequently, McNeely could not clearly establish the law in this context. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on an exigent circumstances exception to getting blood from a VICTIM.

          • VaHam

            That is about the most ignorant answer I could have imagined. Do you think the rights of a victim would in any way be less than the rights of a suspect? The McNeely case was substantialy about the use of implied consent and exigency when violating 4th amendment rights.

          • renegadesix

            The ignorance is yours. In order to clearly establish the law, at least for purposes of qualified immunity, a case must be materially similar to the one at issue. You do not have “materially similar” facts when one case is about a SUSPECT and the other is about a VICTIM. Moreover, this case does NOT involve implied consent. This case is about the preservation of evidence from the VICTIM for use in any subsequent prosecution against the person(s) responsibile for hurting him. McNeely was about preservation of evidence from the SUSPECT to be used AGAINST the suspect. They are two entirely different scenarios.

            Do you even know what the effect of the exclusionary rule is? The exclusionary rule prevents the admission of evidence in cases where evidence is gathered in violation of the SUPSECT’s rights. Had the officers in this case gathered the evidence from the victim, they still could have used it to prosecute anyone who could have been associated with the crime. In most cases the victims would have been happy that their blood contributed to the prosecution of the person who hurt them.

          • VaHam

            Actually he said they could obtain a warrant to get the results after the fact; they also could have obtained the same warrant to force a blood drawn; IF THEY HAD PROBABLE CAUSE. The nurse told them that an e-warrant would be acceptable; which begs the question why didn’t they request a warrant? Was it because they knew they couldn’t get a warrant and chose to attempt to bully their way or were they ignorant of the law? (SCOTUS 2016 Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425)

          • Nick Barone

            Ahhh…. Renegadesix, you now tip your hand with the disclosure of what your profession is. It makes all the sense in the world now why you would look anywhere and everywhere for another reason for the blood draw.

            You state you don’t believe it was an “insurance policy” grab in case of a future lawsuit. If the request was not a legal one and the reasoning just could not be a CYA move then please enlighten us as what other motivations could be behind such a blatant abuse of authority?

          • renegadesix

            I already have. I suggest you learn to read.

          • Sean L. Allen

            I think your idiot son has been commenting earlier under your account….because all of your other comments sound like tomfoolery.

          • retired1996

            Under Federal law it is mandatory for all commercial truck drivers to have blood drawn in all fatal accidents.

          • Phil White

            What are you taking about? I have been through chapter 49 of the CFR and I see nothing close to this. It would nice if you quote your source. But like so many times I run into these interpretations these Pro Statist are taking something ambiguous and interpreting it very restrictively. This is a contradicts the rule of lenity which is very much apart of English common law.

          • retired1996

            Read Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act…Section 382-303 test shall be done in all fatal accidents by the employer.

          • Phil White

            I was looking in 383, thank you very much.

            Well that makes more sense. So the employer needs to try to get their employee to consent to a test and if they don’t try to get their employee to consent, the DOT can fine the company.

            The controlled substance test is a urine test, not a blood test.
            The alcohol test can be a breath or a urine, not a blood test.

            Why am I so stuck on the employee having to consent:
            Supreme Court opinion of Birchfield vs. North Dakota

            So where is this implied consent crap coming from?

            Utah law, well
            Utah Supreme Court case of the State vs. Rodriquez

            Same thing as aforementioned supreme court case.

            These Tories, these Red Coats they just never go away.

          • VaHam

            However I believe (SCOTUS 2016 Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425) would prevail in enforcement of 49 CFR 382.303 regulation. Federal law does not top the Bill of Rights or SCOTUS decisions on their application.

            IMHO this is simply a strong example of implied consent, by virtue of being a truck driver.

            http://www.in.gov/spd/files/DOT_CDL_Post_Accident.pdf
            https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/382.303

          • Sheep O’Doom

            For the same reason they go apeshit on blacks. Because idiots like this group SUPPORT THEM in doing shit like this.

          • medbob

            “Want” and Legally Allowed are two different things. I want a thousand dollars but if I take it from a bank, you are coming to get me.

    • Bryan

      That’s what I believe, there is no other reasonable explanation.

    • JR Hannafin

      Exactly. Their story, that they were trying to exonerate him, or protect him somehow, makes no sense. the only way this makes sense is if they wanted some evidence that would take the responsibility away from the perusing officers for the fatal wreck and the trucker’s injuries.. a finding that the trucker was impaired would do that.

    • David E Brown

      so the fault of the chase is on the police and not the criminal who violated every law involved? The driver had no regard for anyone’s safety. The criminal fleeing the police would have killed you, Scott Beers, If it would get him clear of the police . and you know it. Socialists will get killed buy their own people. because of letting criminals off from their crimes.

    • Sean

      Uhm…no, it isn’t that the officers were looking for a scapegoat. Did you know that when there is a vehicle fatality that blood is drawn from all drivers in most states? Did you know that even if the person is not in the wrong, they can be convicted of negligent homicide if their blood alcohol level is above the lawful amount?
      With that said, it could have been handled far better, I am not denying that. However, people always jump to assume that police officers are up to something. As a retired officer coming from a family of officers, let me tell you, police officers are just people. Some good, some bad, but most are just good people trying to make a living.
      On the one hand people make sure to point out that officers are no better than anyone else….and they are right. On the other hand they are always assuming that officers have some great plan up their sleeve because, I guess, they cannot just make a mistake. You can’t have it both ways, so I will help you. Officers make mistakes. Unlike flipping the wrong burger, when officers make a mistake, it can be very costly to everyone involved, which is why the job is extremely stressful. In this case, since the department is issuing an apology, I will assume that the mistake was on the officers side. Other than that, why would they purposefully put themselves into a position to lose their jobs? Oh yeah, because it was some genius plan to cover up a crash. Well, it wasnt too genius. lol

      • Maud Kennedy

        The law requires them to get consent,to have a warrant or to arrest the person to be able to draw blood.

    • jamest1148

      There’s one more thing, the trucker was ALSO a reserve police officer in idaho.

    • VaHam

      Sadly I had the same thought. And I am a very strong supporter of police.

    • Buckhead

      Yes, but who loses when the trucker and nurse “WIN BIG”? Answer: We the people in the form of our tax dollars.

  • AlGator98

    There was ANOTHER police officer who walked up once nurse was in the car and talked to arresting officer, the nurse , then the hospital official. That officer said something to the effect that this was not the first time the PD had trouble “with this hospital” with investigations. What we have here is a lot of bad blood (pardon the pun) between the police and this hospital ALREADY – it finally came to a head here. The hospital’s attorneys and the PD’s attorneys need to get together and slug things out among themselves instead of putting the officers and nurses in each other’s way.

    • Jason Douglas Holford

      Arresting Lt. James Tracy & Detective Payne for kidnapping & assault would help solve the problem.

      • linnilu

        Grow up. I don’t care how old you are chronologically, you sound like a middle schooler.

        • James Michael

          They committed multiple felonies….and her is correct. You like felon thugs with badges and guns? Maybe when you are kidnapped unlawfully you will learn.

        • Mike M

          I agree with Jason. Payne BROKE THE LAW. His immediate supervisor instructed him to BREAK THE LAW (conspiracy). Why is it you law and order folks are never so passionate when the shoe is on the other foot? Grow up and learn to be consistent with your views and apply a little bit of objectivity. Child

  • Big10bill

    This Lt. and detective better hope that they do not end up in this hospital some day – pain killers might not be available.

  • Bobdole10

    Not to mention that the cops could have effed up a real crime investigation because of an illegal search

    • Terry in GA

      True.

  • Terry

    Come on a cop cannot walk into a hospital and attempt to draw blood ever. TRAINED phlebotimottst or not. If the hospital let him do that they would be liable if any thing went wrong. The Lt. needs to be demoted for not knowing protocol.

  • Jim Morrison

    He needs to lose his badge forever..Period.

    • David Maggard

      I think all involved do, none of the others even tried to do anything to de-escalate or seemed to object to a clear attempt to violate the patients rights or them abusing a nurse that was just doing her job

  • cclesue

    However nice everybody is being in this instant it still begs the question did anybody draw the blood of the unconcience man and if so where does that leave the driver in any future litigation? Seems like he could be in for BIG bucks.

  • Anton Zuykov

    “No lawsuit has been filed at this time.”
    Don’t worry. It WILL be filed. It will require just one lawyer. And judging by the video, there is going to be a line of them at that nurse’s door.

    • Brian Brandt

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Shaffer_(alpine_skier)

      Once an incident earns its own Wiki page its all over save for calculating the damages.

    • Jennifer

      This happened on 26th July, The Kops Chief & mayor stayed silent on it for 2 months & were forced to talk about it when the media made this story international.

      The Nurse is still silent, she wont be filing a lawsuit, & you can bet on that.

  • duder1897

    Just draw the blood and stop being an idiot.

    • James Michael

      Steal my blood without probable cause and you will NOT like my bill…..

      • duder1897

        Shit like this is why Americans are regarded as the dumbest people on the planet. Steal my blood. hahaha

        • Brian Brandt

          Right. We don’t have a Constitution or anything. Just do it!

          /sarcasm off

  • the_npp

    NO! This is the problem with the Blue Line! This detective should be fired and arrested! You do NOT offer excuses for this. The camera tells all! When the nurse wouldn’t allow him to break the law, he assaulted her!
    This si one time when those defending the Blue Line need to be on the other side from this defective detective.
    Bye-bye pension, bye-bye job. Hello cellmates!
    NOW!

    • James Michael

      Actually he aggravated kidnapped and falsely imprisoned her….in treason of the 4th and 5th all felonies.

  • Jay Cunnington

    So I get hit by some yahoo and the cops want to check ME to see if I am impaired. Like what, I could have reacted faster to avoid an accident? If I’m on the highway going 65 and the other guy’s speeding in excess of that, we’re closing at better than 130 mph, or about 200 feet per second. If I’m driving a rig, that gives me no time to react as a big rig is not a sports car. Why are they testing the truck driver? So they can bust him for being done unto?

    • BJR1961

      So that they won’t be blamed for the high speed chase they were in, when the guy they were chasing hit the truck and died. The blood samples already taken by the hospital could be used later to test for different substances (once proper legal procedures were used), which would negate the “we were afraid any drugs would break down quickly” excuse. This was abuse of power by ALL officers present.

      • danmcn61

        I think they wanted a blood sample from the truck driver in order to complete the investigation, and to show that the accident was purely the fault of the pickup truck driver. That’s all. It was not an attempt to pin anything on the truck driver.

        • dan

          And what was so urgent time wise to warrant this? What if armed hospital security on hospital property defended the nurse? Was the blood going to flow down a drain and not be recoverable? Bull in a China shop officer and supervisor!

        • Mike M

          “in order to complete the investigation” , “to show that the accident was purely the fault of the pickup truck driver”

          That’s a damn good attempt at spinning this. Do you really think your disingenuous motive is not completely transparent? People are innocent until proven guilty. It is laughable to suggest that not only did the police *need* to prove his innocence, but that they also had a vested interest in doing so. They engaged in a high speed pursuit (probably against dept policy) and which ended up with an innocent man in a coma. Their best chance of avoiding a hefty lawsuit is to make that innocent man ‘not so innocent.’ But again, that requires consent, an arrest, or a warrant (with probable cause).

          TLDR – there was no urgent ‘investigation’ to complete and the only downside to not obtaining a blood sample is that the police would then have to answer for their reckless high speed pursuit.

      • richard scalzo

        That’s what we did. Get a subpoena for the blood. It’s never been an issue. As far as the blood, with a fatality they usually get all the evidence. You can’t go back in case something comes up weeks later. This was being done by two departments that didn’t relay the facts apparently.

        As the story clearly states, with recent case law, if they got the blood, it would not be admissible without the warrant.

      • Todd Murphy

        You are so wrong ! I would encourage the nah Sayers to read your state laws on driving impaired and or serious motor vehicle accidents.

        Most require ( that means that the state legislature made it a mandate) to draw blood in ALL serious injury accidents. Prior to 2016 there was no requirement for any warrants and most of you signed the consent when you went and got your drivers license. Read what you sign when you get yours next time, its the entire basis behind what’s called Implied Consent.

        • Patti Harding Rooks

          Florida’s “implied consent” law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving under the influence, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC) or for drugs.

          • Tonya Weirum Henson

            Patti, exactly…the law states that the officer must have probable cause…which was not present in this case. The patient was the victim

        • Tonya Weirum Henson

          Todd, however it was “before” doesn’t matter now. They needed a warrant since the patient was not under arrest and was unconscious. The 2016 Supreme Court ruling made this very clear. Also, there must be probable cause that the person was IMPAIRED for the implied consent law to take affect (at least in Utah, where this happened). Police can’t just go take blood from anyone in a serious accident without a warrant. You are wrong, just as the officer was wrong.

          • Todd Murphy

            You may try reading the actual Supreme Court ruling Tonya.

            The ruling left Implied Consent in place as long as you are not criminally punished for not cooperating with the blood draw. You can still face civil/administrative punishment such as losing your license.

            If you read Implied consent it says that you agree to consent to a test of your blood and or breath – you agree to this when you sign for your drivers license and every state REQUIRES the test in serious injury motor vehicle accidents — of every driver involved.

            I agree that on its face it runs against common sense law enforcement and the constitution but the courts have ruled many times that driving is a privledge not a right, that the government can sanction and place conditions on.

            The Supreme Court only dealt with criminal punishments for refusing warrant less test.

            Implied consent applies to the unconscious — not my opinion but it’s case law

          • Tonya Weirum Henson

            Todd, in this case there were
            no exigent circumstances and the criteria for implied consent were not met. Numerous legal experts, the SLC police and the DA all agree the officers were wrong. You can argue this all you want, but certain criteria have to be met. Police don’t have all reaching authority. They have certain latitudes, but in THIS particular case they overreached.

          • Joe Westmount

            Todd, you are the only person who feels this way because you are wrong

            Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that drawing blood is not so urgent that officers shouldn’t first get a warrant, although they allowed the blood results to be used as evidence.
            In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated in Missouri v. McNeely that police have to get a warrant to draw blood without a subject’s consent. And last year, the court reiterated in Birchfield v. North Dakota that “implied consent” was not a basis to demand a blood draw

        • BJR1961

          The patient was unconscious, so could not give consent, he was not under arrest, and all the police had to do was to call a Judge for a warrant to draw blood. Of course, to get that warrant would necessitate having probable cause, and they knew they couldn’t get that legally. He was in the correct lane, not driving suspiciously at all, but was hit head-on by someone being chased by police. His employer may have had a “right” to his bloodwork (with proper paperwork), but not the police.

        • BJR1961

          You cannot be asked to sign away your rights in advance. The blood had already been taken, a tox screen performed, and it was also PRIVATE information — without consent, the victim being under arrest, or a SEARCH WARRANT.

  • Tamy Higgins

    I always back the blue, but, Det. Payne’s actions were not lawful. He flat out assaulted the nurse. Regardless of whether he is a trained phlebotomist, I seriously doubt that his department has a protocol or policy allowing him to perform phlebotomy. Therefore, if the hospital were to allow him to draw the blood, not only would it put the hospital in a liability pickle, but open them up for a lawsuit.

  • Jason Douglas Holford

    Lt. James Tracy & Detective Payne need to be arrested for kidnapping and assault.

    • James Michael

      Bingo…..

  • john drury

    he manhandeled her and was an asshole and didet need to be

    • Terry in GA

      This is the issue that bothers me most. I am very pro-police, but this detective decided he wasn’t going to accept “no” for an answer, and that he was getting that blood before he left the hospital. He appears to me to have anger issues and would not surprise me if he were a wife-beater. The nurse is under no order to submit to the authority of the officer. His response by snatching her up and dragging her outside for arrest was DESPICABLE.

    • David Maggard

      The sad think is the 2nd cop was even more of a condescending asshole than the one who arrested her.

  • Joseph Dalton

    This article was full of assumptions like this big one where it said ” Gray wasn’t under arrest, which suggests that there was no probable cause.” He’s unconscious, so why the need to formally say he’s under arrest? That would come later once the results were back. In many cities, if they are under arrest and taken to the hospital for treatment, guess who gets the bill, so why arrest them when it’s not needed at that point? Also, he was driving a truck thus operating with a CDL under federal requirements, they are legally intoxicated at .04% or above. Another thing. This happened somewhere else so he was assisting that agency. He still had a right to perform his duties but may not have had the jurisdiction to arrest.

    The article failed to mention Missouri vs McNeely which a “5-4 Supreme Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court, agreeing that
    an involuntary blood draw is a “search” as that term is used in the
    Fourth Amendment.
    As such, a warrant is generally required. In its majority opinion, the
    Court found that because McNeely’s “case was unquestionably a routine
    DWI case” in which no factors other than the natural dissipation of
    blood-alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, the court held that
    the nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violated McNeely’s Fourth
    Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.
    However, the Court left open the possibility that the “exigent
    circumstances” exception to that general requirement might apply in some
    drunk-driving cases.” ****Note the last sentence****

    McNeely dealt with a conscious driver able to give consent. This driver was unconscious thus unable to decline. This past March, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the case of the State of Wisconsin vs David Howes ruled that “an officer can be justified in taking a blood sample without a warrant
    when delaying would lead to the destruction of evidence, namely falling
    levels of alcohol in the drunken driver’s bloodstream.” So they made that ruling with McNeely and Birchfield in mind. Although that’s a Wisconsin case, it’s certainly guidance for other states with similar laws. I cannot speak for what Utah’s laws are.

    BTW – I am neither defending nor attacking the officer, just pointing out that he may be covered under the law legally.

    • Perry Gower

      He was not covered under the law, Utah vs. Rodriguez:
      http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1102466.html

      blood draw needs a warrant without consent in Utah, this was from 10 years ago

    • Informed Discussion

      Problem is he wasn’t under arrest and was actually a victim in the incident. Even if its department policy to obtain blood samples of both drivers of a fatal collision, how do you get the PC necessary for a warrant or an exigent draw. You can’t. Most importantly lets just go to the professionalism of the whole thing. Arresting a nurse in a hospital, who legitimately is trying to determine what the right thing is, gets arrested. I honestly can’t see any cop backing that move at all. I understand why he may have done it, though wrong, but anyone should have known not to.

  • Nelda Greer

    The police have guidelines to follow re a chase of a suspect. When a fatality occurs during a chase, the police conduct must be questioned. It looks to me as if the police were trying to obtain evidence from a victim that could absolve the police. The truck driver did not cause the accident. The truck driver was the victim.

    • nnss

      Exactly

  • David Haynie

    I will always back anybody who job is to serve the public. But, that being said, the system itself is as corrupt as the day is long. That is how things like this happen. The officer was doing his job and since he chose not to know the constitution (a shame) he decided to rely on his superior officer for advice (again, a shame). My brother in law is on our local sheriffs department and is moving up in the ranks to someday be chief. This is not due to the fact that he follows orders blindly, but instead because he stands up for what is right. He has refused to do what a superior has told him to do because he refuses to violate our rights. As a police officer this is more important than anything else. Policy change is more important than a lawsuit for the simple fact that if you want change petitioning will go a long way to seeing it implemented.

  • Asger Jon Vistisen

    There’s so much hate against police at the moment, and we must work hard to stop it. This police officer just delivered a devastating blow to police credibility by violently arresting a nurse on camera. One thing is what the law says, but another thing is considering how things look. If police were not currently under heavy attack from the left, the officer could possibly be forgiven, but he and his supervisor have to be fired in this case, because keeping them destroys the credibility of the remaining police.

  • Pigs being pigs. SOP for the swine in blue.

  • Kevin Gill

    Will You guys be updating your “Explanation” to include: NO CHARGES WERE FILED, THE NURSE WAS RELEASED, AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND THE MAYOR APOLOGIZED, AND CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE BEING LOOKED INTO FOR THE OFFICER? Just curious.

  • T Nick

    The manner of the arrest was way out of line. The Detective lost the community respect and of fellow officers.

  • Quaze

    BLUE LIVES MATTER are apologists for the thugs and bullies who happen to wear police uniforms… the jig is up, the word is out, the public is on to you.

  • CraxyD

    Saw this in another article: “A Salt Lake City police spokeswoman said the department has been working closely with the hospital to ensure such actions never happen again and that it is alarmed by what occurred.”

    Translation: We’re trying to negotiate with the hospital to keep Nurse Wubbels from suing the bejeezus out of us.

  • Ghastly

    I saw something very disturbing here besides the obvious. None of the other officers there tried to intervene or attempted to deescalate the situation. That is an indication of a deeper problem in the department than one officer with an issue. I see a Presidential pardon in someone’s future.

    • David Maggard

      The worst part is she was calm and was just explaining why not, she wasn’t argumentative, she wasn’t hostile, she was clearly just trying to follow the policy created by the hospital and the police.

  • robgc11

    No need for an explanation…we know right from right and wrong from wrong…the cop is wrong here

  • Roman Baghdadi
  • Dan MacIntyre

    Call a spade a spade, this guy embarrassed himself and his entire dept by responding to a calm, reasonable public health professional with aggression because she told him he was wrong. End of discussion, no case law needed. That’s not the response of a professional public servant.

  • Jennifer

    This happened on July 26, Why has Mrs Alex Wubbels (a 2 time Olympian) Not yet filed a law suit?

    If anybody’s action needs condemnation for now its the nurse’s for allowing this grievous act go unpunished. Her failure to bring litigation is a clear message to the Police of Utah.

    “Its All good!”

  • Joel Miller

    Bullshit. Unacceptable. 99 times out of 100 I’m the one arguing in behalf of the officer. This is so beyond reason, it’s unfathomable. PD deserves a lawsuit and cop deserves to be fired immediately. Period dot.

    • David Maggard

      I would say 999 out of 1000 or 9999 out of 10000 myself, but when that 1 exception comes along, which this clearly is, I say we drop the hammer.

  • Informed Discussion

    Part of backing the blue is admitting when a mistake is made. There is no excuse for this. There may be justification as to why it happened (which is likely very faulty logic) but come on, arresting the nurse in this scenario is ludicrous!

  • Bluedog

    Leave the truck driver alone…..he was lucky he escaped with his life. The perp is dead…..why go after the trucker?…makes no sense. He didnt do anything wrong. How are you going to suspect a guy with third degree burns as impaired?…%^^& the Utah morons. Spirit of the law and letter of the law……they seem like idiots, Even if he had a few…I’m not worried about it…jezzzz guys get real.

  • Beth Pettit Mooney

    I’m a nurse and my dad was a police officer so i am definitely pro police but this department needs some serious training and those 2 officers need to be disciplined. what do they say? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

  • Brent Davids

    You forgot to mention that on April 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Missouri v. McNeely, ruling that obtaining involuntary specimens for blood alcohol testing without a warrant is an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

  • Rick Rife

    The cop was way out of wacko. He might have a license to draw blood I am sure he doesn’t have hospital privileges to practice his license. Strike 3 . Sue the police department for 20 million dollars and the officer for $10,000,000 for mental anguish. I have a son -inlaw and 2 stepsons that are Sheriffs deputies, and it is cops like this moron that get good cops killed.

  • Aesop

    I’m an current ER nurse with 20+ years’ experience in SoCal in the busiest ERs on the planet.
    I am normally strongly pro law enforcement, working with officers daily(nightly) as I have for my entire career.
    When I saw this video this morning, I passed “livid” and went straight to “volcanic” on the rage-meter.
    And at work, I’m the calm guy.
    Neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances entitles ANY law enforcement officer in ANY capacity to compel, under threat of criminal prosecution, the co-operation of ANY third party to perform such a blood draw.

    If he had probable cause AND exigent circumstances, he had grounds to make an arrest, at which point, under both law and hospital policy, drawing blood from the unconscious patient would have been legal, authorized, and within hospital policy.

    Had he merely made the arrest, and assumed all further legal liability for what was, in all probability, neither legal nor exigent, the blood would have been drawn, but instead of putting his own head on the block for that illegal act, the officer (and his xxxx-for-brains watch commander Lt. who ordered the arrest – “just following orders”) tried to illegally compel the unwilling participation of a nurse who did no more than tell him he was effing up by the numbers.

    Any cop who EVER tells me that he’s found a loophole in Constitution, and may suddenly make me an indentured servant of his department, contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment, whether in CA, UT, and/or the 48 other states or 7 US territories, will be told on the spot in plain English just exactly how far he can shove that noise up his own tailpipe, sideways, with a rusty chainsaw.

    Anything he does after that, short of splutter and soil himself, will enable my early retirement on the proceeds of his former job, agency, city, and personal assets, until he’s living on skid row in a cardboard box.

    Try me on that point.

    Hospital staff have NO DUTY WHATSOEVER to work for the police, EVER, under ANY circumstance you can postulate nor imagine.

    Officer Jackboots and his idiot Lt watch commander need to learn that lesson from the unemployment line, after a trip to court in the defendant’s chair, and a good stretch in federal prison. They are too defective to ever entrust with the responsibility they’ve been given.

    When I blogged this incident today, one of the kindest comments I saw online stated that Ofcr. Payne “ought to be taken out back and whipped with a fan belt.”
    What a pity Utah no longer has corporal punishment.

    And the “one bad apple” line, like “just following orders”, has stopped meaning anything.
    Heads. Should. Roll.
    Nothing less will suffice.

    These two idiots in Utah have tarred the entire Blue Crew with the same brush, and until this kind of thing becomes a summary firing offense followed by referral for criminal prosecution, I’m pretty sure you folks can count on everything from difficult cooperation at best to outright open hostility and loathing from the entire health-care profession.
    Well-played. Like you needed another few million enemies.

    This wasn’t an Oopsie! “mistake”, it was “Respect mah authoritay, or I’m going to protect and serve the crap out of you!” thuggery, under the sovereign immunity of a badge.

    Rodney King was a thug.
    This was a nurse in the ER doing her job within the law and hospital /SLC PD prior-mutually-agreed-upon policy, and merely informing Det. Jackboots he was breaking it, fer cripes sake.

    If anyone with a badge and gun can’t tell the difference, they’re worse than the criminals they’re supposed to protect society from, and their services are not needed.

    • Jennifer

      The Dept wont change,

      The only person who can force change here is Nurse Alex Wubbels (2 time Olympian too)
      She has Refused/declined to press charges in the matter, no matter how much you or i scream its not gonna make a difference to anybody.

      There is only one wrong action here, The failure of Nurse Alex Wubbels to Press Charges.
      The actions against her were criminal,
      ipso facto she is aiding a Criminal now.

      • David Maggard

        I think the public outcry MAY get a few ppl fired, a nice juicy settlement would have made the dept decide to respect the law.

        • Jennifer

          How will a settlement paid by the city make the Dept change?

  • MPAobserver

    The optics are horrible. The logic in the story above is worse.

    The facts are these:
    -The truck driver was not a suspect
    -There is no “exigent” circumstance on any planet in this universe applicable here
    -Department “policy” for any evidence collection is not the law
    -There is no warrant
    -There is no consent

    The nurse?
    Unlawful Restraint
    Illegally Detained
    Assault
    (Potential) Abuse of Authority

    The rest is just figuring out how much she should sue the department for and then go after Payne civilly.
    The department’s removal of Payne from the force.
    (Potential) Payne’s criminal prosecution

    end of story.

    • Jennifer

      $5000 x 20 = $100,000

      20 for the time (mins) she was locked back in the cruiser, for deprivation of constitutional rights.

      • James Michael

        Trezevant v Tampa false imprisonment is worth 1085$ a minute….upheld on appeal.
        Then she can charge him punatively for the treason, terrorism maliciousness and everything else he did…..

  • jsaunders

    42 USC sect 1983. LEO’S need to read and heed.

  • nnss

    It is rather obvious they needed something to make this innocent bystander (the patient, victim of a police chase) partly guilty of his accident. That’s why the stakes were so high, and no doubt that’s the reason of this brutal handling of the case. Personally I would not have screamed “no” but “I’m gonna be rich” because man is this a blunder.

  • John Ladouceur

    Cops stick by cops. This is how it’s going to happen. The order comes down to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens. Cops who remember their oath won’t do it. A few leftist cops who became cops for a reason other than the constitution will agressively enforce the order. Joe Homeowner will stand up for himself, meaning defend himself. THIN BLUE LINE! OFFICER DOWN! Doesn’t matter if “officer” was molesting a child. Cops stick by cops. Don’t care what you say. You’ll do what you’re told.

  • tedbaldwin

    he arrested her in an entirely unprofessional manner. That alone should see him fired.

  • EDG

    A lawsuit must occur for the public good. If the nurse fails to file a lawsuit, she is letting down her fellow citizens.

  • James Michael

    Well lets see….The cop (sworn public servant) just committed
    aggravated kidnapping, false imprisonment and treason…..She committed
    NO criminal act and obeyed the law and he treasoned both the 4th and 5th
    amendments. Statutes do not trump your sworn oaths….YOU cannot steal
    someones blood without their permission ignoramus, unless YOU have
    probable cause…..
    Oh and under section 802 of the patriot act, he also committed
    terrorism, you morons….
    AND wrong, to detain is an arrest, and without probable cause, is
    kidnapping and false imprisonment idiot…..and treason of both the 4th
    and 5th you moron. He is a typical arrogant ignorant unamerican piece of shit….AND wrong, there
    is no obstruction without a crime committed and when YOU are in the
    commission of a felony….
    You are a typical treasonous retard…..with a badge…

    detain. To retain as the possession of personalty. (((((To arrest,)))))
    to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard,
    to restrain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17
    Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438; State v. King, 303 S.W.2d 930,
    934.
    See Confinement; Custody.
    Blacks Law.

    detain To hold; (((((to keep in custody))))); to keep.
    To detain goods as amounting to a conversion of them means wrongfully to
    hold them and keep them in ones custody. Wails v Farrington, 27 Okla
    754, 116 P 428
    Ballentines Law

    “Any restraint, however slight, upon another’s liberty to come and go as
    one pleases, constitutes an arrest.”
    Swetnam v. W. F. Woolworth Co., 318 P.2d 364, 366, 83 Ariz. 189.

    EVERYONE in that hospital had every right to stop that felon traitor
    using force…

    You do that to my fucking wife, or daughter. I’ll take
    everything your traitor ass has, nazi fuck…..

    HE was not making a lawful arrest, he was committing multiple felonies
    you ignorant sworn servants…..

  • Mystery Dude

    No matter how it’s broken down, this guy is a bully with a badge. He acted in a fit of rage which, based off of his actions, seemed to be his normal character. I would be willing to bet there is a long line of people spanning many years who would testify to his abuse, but they would be discounted because of most likely having some sort of infraction that they were guilty of themselves (speeding ticket, public intoxication, etc, etc). His partner was just as much of a bully for not putting a stop to it and for lying or misrepresenting the law to her in the car.

    I respect officers who respect others, but I have no respect for bullies in any form, and that includes those who wear a badge and disrespect the oaths they took when they received them. There is no excuse for his actions, and he should never have the privilege of wearing a badge again. I hope she can retire when she is done with him.

    That’s just my two cents…not that it matters in the scheme of things.

  • Randall Flagg

    He was pissed because she dared to defy him simple as that. He knew he was in the wrong and he didn’t appreciate the fact that she knew the law and wasn’t going to cooperate. Cut her a check shes earned it.

  • wormhd883

    I am sorry most of the time I will back the blue but I feel that the RN’s rights were violated and she should sue them. He had no probable cause , the man that caused the accident was killed , now getting his blood I can understand , but the truck driver was a victim so there is no probable cause . Plus she was reading the agreement that the hospital had with the police , again no probable cause . what I don’t understand is why no one at the Hospital , you know like the doctor on call did not stand up for the RN.

  • Clows

    Had she been a black nurse, you would all be reversed, saying the detective should have bashed her head in for getting in his way. I keep reading your biased commentary and it makes me sick. Double standards everywhere.

    • JBo

      Thanks for playing the race card in a story that has nothing to do with race. You’re part of the problem.

      • Mike M

        Not racist at all, just accurate. Where’s the nurses criminal record? What is her history with running into the law?

        • JBo

          His statement was stupid. It’s not a race issue and whether the nurse was white, black or Asian would not change the facts of the incident. The officer acted badly. Making a statement that “Had she been a black nurse, you would all be reversed, saying the detective should have bashed her head…”. That’s a stupid statement and a lie.

          The vast majority of LEOs and supporters know the difference between right and wrong and race does not affect that. His statement implies LEOs and supporters are racist. Not true. If it had been a black nurse, she still would have been right and the officer would still have been wrong.

          The nurse’s criminal record or run ins, or lack thereof, with law enforcement have absolutely nothing to do with this incident when the officer is the one screwing up…royally. It’s not the nurses fault.

          • Jennifer

            Remember the name Kevin McMahill?

            maybe this video will clear up a few things about Kevin McMahill.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3cUo_xS-m0

            & how his wife is actively involved in Spin!
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf5OyPW7QP4

          • JBo

            I never heard the name McMahill until your post and I’m not sure what Las Vegas Metro PD has to do with this nurse being arrested. As far as I can tell, neither LVMPD or Nevada have any connection to Utah.

          • Jennifer

            K, fair point. let me jog your memory.

            (JBo -to-> Mike M • 8 days ago)
            “The nurse’s criminal record or run ins, or lack thereof, with law
            enforcement have absolutely nothing to do with this incident when the
            officer is the one screwing up…royally. It’s not the nurses fault.”

            People like Kevin bring up past criminal records when the media scrutinizes a case, & remember The Micheal Bennett/NFL story, that is the Same Kevin McMahill i’m talking about here.

            Good luck with the spin!

          • JBo

            But what does have to do with my comments to Mike M or to this nurse topic? I don’t understand if you agree or disagree with what I said. Maybe I’m missing something.

          • Jennifer

            Where is the Nurse’s criminal past & dirt dug up by the Police Spin doctors, i’ll tell you exactly where it is, they tried real hard to dig anything & every thing they could find on her for 2 months.

            She is a 2 time Olympian & a decent person who does her job with diligence, so much that even the doctors over there stood like cowards & watched get arrested UNLAWFULLY!

          • JBo

            Jennifer…I think you’re mis-reading my posts. I agree that she was arrested unlawfully…I agree that her past or lack thereof has nothing to do with her arrest. I thought I was clear in my posts that she was treated badly so I’m not sure why you’re lashing out at me?

  • Deena Sowa McCollum

    Not good enough! He was aggressive, attacking and totally out of line. You disappoint SLC.

  • Jehu

    Ignorance is BLISS. Here is a short brief on the guidelines of Federal DOT regulations that all CDL Drivers are subject to to operate a commercial vehicle in the United States, It has nothing to do with State law.
    How Long Does a Driver Have to Complete Post-Accident Testing?

    The FMCSA requires that testing must be completed within specific timeframes. This means that drivers are to remain available for testing until it is determined whether or not they were at fault.

    DOT breath alcohol tests are to be completed within two hours of the accident.

    Often, that is not possible due to the driver being retained at the scene. Therefore, after two hours have passed, it is the employer’s responsibility to document why the test wasn’t completed. Documentation needs to continue at least every two hours until the driver has taken a DOT breath alcohol test. If after eight hours the driver is still unable to test, all efforts must cease.

    DOT drug tests must take place within 32 hours.

    As with breath alcohol tests, documentation must be regularly made regarding why a test may not have been completed. If after 32 hours the driver is still unable to test, all efforts must cease.

    • Joe Westmount

      I am a FMCSA certified physician. Any of the standard testing for a ICU would comply with FMCSA. The penalty for not testing is license suspension. A civil matter. They officers here have no jurisdiction and were not and could not act in that manner.

      Dont try to make excuses with regulations you know nothing about. Are they federal agents?

  • Larry Brown

    Sounds like the watch commander and detective need a little more training

  • raybbr

    It’s not just thug who arrested her. There were several thug cops who stood around and allowed him to arrest her. Remember, the blue line shall not be crossed by anyone.

  • Gary Pagliaro

    I am a registered nurse with 25 years ER experience in an inner city ER. I came here expecting the nurse to be blamed. I also have members of my immediate and extended family in Law Enforcement. In the ER we work very closely with PD, so I was baffled by this. You explained it fairly, and very well. I can state unequivocally that in NY the police MUST get a warrant, and without probable cause, they would be hard pressed to get one. I haves stopped 2 blood draws on victims, one where I had to call the command and have the officer relieved. This was a sad case, and hopefully a teaching moment.

  • I generally do not make judgments of police officers with a limited online observation. But the arrest of this Nurse is so unbelievable, that I’m going to chime-in here. I’d like to write more, but my schedule today does not permit me to do so (besides there are many great observations in comment, under this article).

    I watched the video of the collision, and I watched the video of the Nurse’s subsequent arrest.

    #1 in the video of the fatal collision, the truck driver William Gray was clearly the victim here (unless they found open containers in his truck, which was not reported), moreover he was not the cause of this collision

    #2 in the video of the arrest of the nurse, the nurse did her due diligence to confirm her hospitals lawful and ethical policies. She then professionally conveyed those policies to the officers, but with no avail. She too is a victim, but they treated her like the suspect.

    #3 I was a policeman before this 2016 case law, and I always disagreed that a police officer (or a phlebotomist) could ‘forcefully’ take blood against a person’s knowledge or will. Folks the Law is not always good. Often times the Law is immoral, or unconstitutional, and/or it shocks the conscience, and it is often times unbiblical (just look at todays America). I worked for one police agency that did NOT allow this (even knowing that it was lawful to do so then). I worked for another agency that did force blood. I am glad that the law has since changed, where a warrant is required. And no, I do not believe the “exigent circumstance” applies here.

    #4 the semi-truck driver William Gray clearly was the innocent victim here, but they ordered blood taken from him. I suspect a reason why they wanted blood from him, is because their police pursuit which was partially responsible for this fatal collision, was probably ‘out of policy.’ Therefore they were hoping that the truck driver ‘might’ have alcohol in his system, shifting the blame away from the police towards the truck driver (unbelievable).

    #5 Lt. James Tracy should be demoted, as he clearly displays an inability to make a sound decision (he should have responded to the hospital).

    #6 though no law suit has been filed, I urge the nurse and truck driver to obtain a skilled civil rights attorney, and file a Federal civil rights law suit immediately.

    The detective in that emergency room handled that nurse like a SS Nazi.

  • Julia Harbeck

    My question, I was under the impression that the patient was already in the ICU burn unit and this was several hours already from when the accident occurred. The blood draw then would have been already too late. And, in most if not all trauma case initial blood work is drawn usually including a drug screen, why not get a warrant to get them? The nurse was following her supervisors direction, she was basically caught in the middle, be fired for not following orders from her administration, be arrested for not giving the officer what he wanted. I would have hated to be in her shoes and thought she handled it well. Lets hope this is a lesson for officers how not to request a blood sample in the future. Good for the nurse for standing up for her unconscious patients rights.

  • dan

    There is no excuse! Poor training of the officer on the scene and the suoervisory officer ordering the on scene officer. Manhandling medical personal performing their duty is just plain stupid. The nurse was following her directions and supervisor instructions. Stop, step back and research the law. Cuffing a nurse on duty is just plain STUPID!

  • Angry American

    Sounds like a cluster fuck! I would prefer to wait out the determination of the investigation and any court rulings, but I will wonder why the officer didn’t just draw the blood himself and if she impeded him, THEN arrest her.

  • theoneandonlyridor

    This particular detective and his supervisor absolutely have *no* right to obtain the blood sample from the VICTIM. Mr. Gray was not chased by Utah Highway Patrol. They were chasing after Marcos Torres who was killed when he crashed into Mr. Gray’s truck. Because Mr. Gray was the victim, common sense dictated that there is no need for a blood sample to be obtained. But these days, the cops lacked common sense which is frightening to say the least!

  • Michael Johnson

    EXPLANATION: A bully cop that will trample on anyone’s rights to enforce HIS law and discipline.

  • Pedro Juan Torres

    The police officer that arrested the nurse for doing her job the police officer should be thrown in jail for false arrest and assault police chief should be fired

  • Carol Underwood

    Nurse was obstructing the law. The man killed someone he has no rights.

    • Nilrem

      Carol Underwood, read the article again (or even for the first time, fully).

      The man was the VICTIM, the nurse was following the law, an agreement made with the police department, and the instructions of her superiors.

      The officers instructions were unlawful and she wasn’t obstructing him, but refusing to assist in breaking the law.

      Also even if the man had killed someone he would have still had rights, but the instruction probably have been lawful and thus followed.

      It’s a sad day when medical staff know the law better than police officers whose job is specifically to interact with those medical staff under.
      Having said that, it seems that in this case the police officers involved knew they were not making lawful requests going by the longer video and some of the other short ones..

    • JBo

      The patient did not kill anyone. He was almost killed by the fleeing suspect. The fleeing suspect was killed.

  • John Walker

    Speaking as both an RN and a retired Reserve Deputy, the ultimate fix for this is for the Montana legislature to quickly pass a bill allowing a blood draw without consent from anyone involved any time there’s an incident involving death. In Iowa that’s the case anytime someone bites a health worker or first responder. They have to provide a sample without delay.

  • mommynator

    The nurse’s first duty was to advocate for her unconscious patient. All Boards of Nursing in every state will back up any nurse who believes that what she is being asked to do is unlawful. In this case, there was no cause since the truck driver was not the perpetrator of the accident and was not under arrest or suspicion of doing anything wrong or illegal. Therefore Nurse Wubbels was totally within her rights to refuse the blood draw. It’s nice to know the law enforcement side of things, but you completely ignored the nursing side of things and what’s right under our scope of practice.

  • Rich

    He was a bully plain and simple and the fact that none of the other
    officers did anything to stop his disrespect and abuse of her implicates them, shame on all of them they’re a discredit to their profession. I generally support the police but in this case it’s obvious the guy was a jerk and I hope she sues and he gets fired.

  • The Owl Guy

    A 28 year veteran of Cobb County PD got fired over a rude remark, and this jack booted thug is still employed?

    From the sheer violence in her arrest, there is no doubt he beats on his wife.

    How many other female innocent victims does he have out there too afraid to come forward?

    • Brian Brandt

      Good question. This may encourage them to come forward.

  • Mike B

    There are 2 applicable laws that need to be addressed:

    1) Implied consent – Title 41 Chapter 6a Part 5 Section 522

    Index Utah Code
    Title 41 Motor Vehicles
    Chapter 6a Traffic Code
    Part 5 Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving
    Section 522 Person incapable of refusal.

    41-6a-522. Person incapable of refusal.
    Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.

    Enacted by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session

    2) Federal DOT Post Accident for Commercial Drivers
    49 CFR 382.303 – Post-accident testing.

    Authorities (U.S. Code)

    § 382.303 Post-accident testing.
    (a) As soon as practicable following an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road in commerce, each employer shall test for alcohol for each of its surviving drivers:

    (1) Who was performing safety-sensitive functions with respect to the vehicle, if the accident involved the loss of human life…..

    Legal requirements for a tox screen were clear.

    Genesis of the problem was piss poor communication by hospital administration and police brass who failed to understand the law or effectively communicate it to staff. The hospital policy was therefore defective.

    It is my understanding that the police brought their own phlebotomist to draw blood and the nurse obstructed that process. If that is correct, she should have been charged (perhaps not arrested on site, but certainly charged by the DA) and video clearly shows her resisting arrest.

    The officer should have seen this situation going down hill and maybe tried to cool it down, but he was in fact taking a direct and LAWFUL ORDER by his LT.

    This is a public relations disaster for the department. The Chief is a political appointee and is groveling for public forgiveness to save his own ass. You can bet he won’t mention the incompetence of his policy makers, but will instead try to throw the beat cop under the bus. Let’s face it, the weasels climb the chain of command.

    • MPAobserver

      Try again.

      The Federal DoT rules do not apply. It’s cute that you tried though.
      https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
      “A highway accident is generally investigated by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency that may determine that probable cause exists to conduct alcohol or controlled substances testing of a surviving driver. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) believes that testing done by such agencies will be done to document an investigation for a charge of driving under the influence of a substance and should be allowed to substitute for a FHWA-required test. The FHWA expects this provision to be used rarely.”
      It’s not “automatic”. You also cite the employer’s requirements. The police are not the employer.

      Payne states in the video at 1:49 they have no probable cause.
      https://youtu.be/MHWXqZQ2_Rw

      It’s also cute you neglected to cite the ENTIRE Utah statute. You cite the Statute for Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving. The truck driver was the victim and again, Payne stated there was no probable cause. You cannot apply that law in this situation.

      “(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).”

      https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S520.html?v=C41-6a-S520_2017050920170509#41-6a-520(1)
      Index Utah Code
      Title 41 Motor Vehicles
      Chapter 6a Traffic Code
      Part 5 Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving
      Section 522 Person incapable of refusal.

      41-6a-522. Person incapable of refusal.
      Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.
      Enacted by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session

      https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6a/41-6a-S520.html
      Effective 5/9/2017
      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).

      It’s not automatic and you do not waive you rights under Utah laws to a search and seizure just because you are a private or commercial driver. The police are not allowed to just “do what they want” unless they have probable cause. You can try to logic, short cite or flat out apply the wrong statutes all you want, it doesn’t make it true.

    • Joe Westmount

      Mike B, is wrong. The law you site points back to the remedy, It was further amended in May 2017

      https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S520.html?v=C41-6a-S520_2017050920170509#41-6a-520(1)
      ( see below )

      The remedy is REVOCATION, not just a flat out do the blood draw……

      (2)
      (a) A peace officer requesting a test or tests shall warn a person that refusal to submit to the test or tests may result in revocation of the person’s license to operate a motor vehicle, a five or 10 year prohibition of driving with any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in the person’s body depending on the person’s prior driving history, and a three-year prohibition of driving without an ignition interlock device if the person:
      (i) has been placed under arrest;
      (ii) has then been requested by a peace officer to submit to any one or more of the chemical tests under Subsection (1); and
      (iii) refuses to submit to any chemical test requested.
      (b)
      (i) Following the warning under Subsection (2)(a), if the person does not immediately request that the chemical test or tests as offered by a peace officer be administered, a peace officer shall, on behalf of the Driver License Division and within 24 hours of the arrest, give notice of the Driver License Division’s intention to revoke the person’s privilege or license to operate a motor vehicle.
      (ii) When a peace officer gives the notice on behalf of the Driver License Division, the peace officer shall:
      (A) take the Utah license certificate or permit, if any, of the operator;
      (B) issue a temporary license certificate effective for only 29 days from the date of arrest; and
      (C) supply to the operator, in a manner specified by the Driver License Division, basic information regarding how to obtain a hearing before the Driver License Division

    • Duane Suddeth

      have you always been this stupid? pay attention to supreme court decisions once in a while, moron

  • Michele

    Still say she was doing her job………….Police was extremely out of order and needed to follow protocol. Arrest was not warranted!

    • Michele

      Demote Officer and Promote Nurse!

  • scaatylobo

    It would be VERY nice = if the internet and all those with “opinions”,took a large swallow of STFU.
    AND let the courts rule.

    • Duane Suddeth

      because the courts are not the final arbitor of whats constitutional and whats not, idiot

    • Brian Brandt

      Isn’t ‘opinion’ what the internet is for?

      And by the way, I don’t like to be told to STFU.

  • Gremlin1974

    I am a 20+ year Nurse and in no facility that I have ever worked would anyone not employed by the hospital or covered by its policy be allowed to draw blood on any patient and that doesn’t even cover the clear attempted violation of this patient’s rights.

    The argument that this badged bully was a “trained phlebotomist” is a diversion at best and complete ignorance at worst, possibly a sad combination of both. Just because someone is “trained” doesn’t mean that they can just walk into a medical facility and start doing what they are “trained” to do. By that logic a surgeon who is “trained” could just walk into any hospital and just start cutting people open or that I as a licensed nurse could just walk into any facility and begin dispensing medications.

    Also, “Trained Phlebotomist” doesn’t mean proficient phlebotomist, it certainly doesn’t mean that he has a level of proficiency to be drawing blood on a severely burned and injured patient. He may be fine for drawing blood on some 3 day tweaker or sniveling DUI suspect, that is miles different than having the skill needed to A) successfully draw blood on a patient who may have limited points of access due to burns, points of access that will be needed by nurses and physicians to help in his recovery from this terrible, debilitating, and life changing injury. That is if this patient even had a place for the blood to be safely drawn, that would depend on the severity and location of his burns. (In explanation if this “trained phlebotomist” screws up and blows the vein he is trying to draw from that vein is no longer available to the medical staff to get access to the patient’s blood stream to give needed medications until it heals, which can be anywhere from 12 hours to several days.) B) who is severely open to infection due to burns. Not to mention a patient that he is told repeatedly is in a coma and can not give consent.

    Also in no state in the US does Trained Phlebotomist trump Licensed Nurse. If I tell a Trained Phlebotomist to step back, come back later, or pretty much any other directive that leaves my mouth regarding the patient in question they had better damned well do it with alacrity if they wish to remain an employed phlebotomist. There is no disciplinary board for “trained phlebotomist” that can completely ruin their lives by removing their licensure, a point many people forget about Nurses. If she had allowed the officer to draw the blood against policy and in violation of his rights as a patient under her care she literally could have lost her license to practice had the patient or someone else reported her to the state nursing board/commission. Physicians rarely lose their license in comparison to nurses. Even in my small state I pay attention to disciplinary actions and every month there are more than a dozen nurse who have their license revoked for far less reason than this situation.

    As far as the authors laughable attempt to justify this badged bullies actions with his/her argument of “exigency”, which means an “an urgent need or demand”. What urgent need or demand would that be? The obviously illegal order from his Lieutenant? Also if such “an urgent need or demand” existed then it should have been no problem to wake up a judge and obtain a warrant. However, the officer knew that he wouldn’t be able to get a warrant since he admitted on video that he had no probable cause, a fact that the author conveniently left out.

    Also there is the simple fact that there is a 99.9% probability that a Toxicology screen (i.e. drug screen) already in his legal medical record or in process since medical staff would need it to know what drugs they could safely give the patient. That Tox Screen is fully admissible in court and would satisfy all demands of chain of custody.

    Last but not least the Author blows his own argument out of the water by pointing out that the officer could have just walked into the room and drawn the blood anyway….so why didn’t he if he was within his legal purview? Simple answer is he wasn’t and he damned well knew it.

    No, the only urgent need or demand here was that the silly peasants acknowledge this badged bullies authority when he strapped his badge to the end of is micro penis and demanded they comply. Exigency doesn’t trump constitutional rights.

    Not only should the nurse sue this officer and his LT into abject poverty and receive an “apology” that has at least 6 zero’s behind it from the department and city, but so should the patient or his family sue both into further abject poverty and also receive an apology from the department and city for the attempted violation of his rights. Both the “officer” and his Lt should face charges of patient endangerment for removing a nurse from a burn unit and compromising the care of the patients.

    Contrary to what he author seems to believe flashing a badge does not mean blind compliance, especially when it involves my patients.

  • AuteursRevenge

    Oh, guess we’re not “arm chair” experts anymore. The condescension is disgusting and so is this cop–where are all the “good apples” btw? Demanding this awful human being on a power trip be removed from his position

    • JBo

      Seems like almost every comment on this board is against the officer and for the nurse. Not sure what you’re talking about.

      • Mike M

        I think he’s referring to the whitewashing by author Snarky, and his piss poor attempt at softening the facts of what actually happened. This article is trash, most notably its omission that Payne’s actions, lacking any lawful backing, constitute assault. Just like if you or I put our hands on someone because we didn’t like to be told “no.”

        • Brian Brandt

          Mike, I believe you are correct, but I also think the original poster is referring to the other ‘good apples’ on scene who did nothing to stop this from happening.

  • dhd123

    I am a supporter of law enforcement but i’m not a blind supporter. First, if this nurse would have just went and drew the blood and handed it over to the detective, she would not have been arrested, but she very possibly could have been fired for violating the hospital policy agreed upon between the hospital and law enforcement. Second, it appears that she was on the phone with hospital administration who were in agreement with her. Third, the nurse was totally in the right (a) when the incident started she consulted hospital policy and shared it with the detective, that policy prevented her from drawing the blood. (b) When this did not remedy the situation, she notified hospital administration exactly as she should have done. (c) When she involved the hospital administration, that took any decision out of her hands, this means that it was no longer her telling the detective no, it was the hospital saying no. If the detective wanted to arrest someone, he should have waited for the hospital administrator and arrested that person. (d) The arrest of the nurse was in retaliation for not obeying blindly, the dick’s orders and instead telling him that his orders in that environment for that situation, meant nothing. the cops were “shooting” the messenger. Let the suing begin, any sh%thouse lawyer could tell that this is a slam dunk.

  • Dennis Zonn

    I’m a MAJOR L.E.O. supporter. I contribute to the Police Fund every year and don’t allow “pig” or any other derogatory comments about cops in my conversation. Having said that Nurse Wubble was completely in the right and both the Lt. issuing the order and the cop enforcing it were breaking the law and completely ignored the Constitution. I hope she receives a hefty settlement.

    • Duane Suddeth

      your position makes you an idiot. stop throwing your money away at a pork association

    • Jennifer

      You know its the people of Utah that will pay towards the settlement for this Kops power Trip, Right?

  • Donna Gibson

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

  • JBo

    It’s well established that, absent consent, any blood draw for for DUI (drugs or alcohol) will require a search warrant. The person was not under arrest so an affirmative response from him would be required for a blood draw. The person was unconscious so he was incapable of giving consent. Even if he was under arrest and conscious, if he refused, you still need a search warrant.

    He was not suspected of causing the accident since the video shows him in the proper lane of traffic and there is no other evidence to support that theory. At best, this is more of a check box on a traffic collision report that is supposed to be checked…at worst, it’s a fishing expedition. The officer handled this poorly and if his lieutenant did give the officer those directions..he was definitely wrong.

  • Doc Swoop

    The only reason the police wanted a blood sample, is due to the outcome of a high speed chase, the guy that they were chasing died and cause injury to an innocent bystander. The results of their actions caused this situation. the officers that were involved in the chase, were they tested also? They want to find something on this truck driver to cover their asses.

    • Brian Brandt

      Exactly correct, Doc Swoop.

  • Joseph Parker

    A Duck is a duck and a dog is a dog. The facts are by ruling of the supreme Court – which the arresting officer new “Detective Payne” that you either need consent or warrant. Even if the blood had been drawn it would have been inadmissible. You have a narcissistic bastard in a minimum position of authority who didn’t get his way and the Nurse paid for it. The rest is supposition.

  • Denise Painter

    You left out one thing – Payne clearly threatens Nurse Wubble in the video by telling her that when he’s at his other job, as an ambulance driver, he is only going to bring indigent patients to their ER from now on. The “good” patients will go elsewhere. Even his partner is trying hard to stop him without appearing to undercut him in the video. When your partner tries to stop you, you ought to listen.

    Sorry, this guy doesn’t deserve to be serving the public if he can go off half cocked this easily. I’ve worked as a first responder. This guy is just an impediment to saving lives.

    One other thing – one of my pet peeves when I worked with the rescue squad was the cops that hang out in the ER and obstruct hallways, drink coffee, make a lot of noise and have no reason to be there. Hospitals ought to ban officers from the back of the ER unless they are there specifically to guard or interrogate a patient being treated. Otherwise, they need to stay in the waiting room like everyone else if they don’t have anything better to do but stand around and talk and get in the way, and let hospital security handle things in the back. Most medical professionals I’ve talked to agree with me, but they’re afraid to say anything because in the past, when cops have been asked to move along and get out of the way, they threaten the hospital with slow response times the next time they have trouble with a patient. That’s why I like hospitals that have a police department on campus – they don’t let their officers stand around and goldbrick in the ER.

  • MPAobserver

    To clarify my response which will be shortened due the way “replies” work on these type of boards, I responded to someone who cited a bunch of statutes etc. but told half the story.
    ———————————————————————————————–
    Try again.

    The Federal DoT rules do not apply. It’s cute that you tried though.
    https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/382.303
    “A highway accident is generally investigated by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency that may determine that probable cause exists to conduct alcohol or controlled substances testing of a surviving driver. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) believes that testing done by such agencies will be done to document an investigation for a charge of driving under the influence of a substance and should be allowed to substitute for a FHWA-required test. The FHWA expects this provision to be used rarely..”
    It’s not “automatic”. You also cite the employer’s requirements. The police are not the employer.

    Payne states in the video at 1:49 they have no probable cause.
    https://youtu.be/MHWXqZQ2_Rw

    It’s also cute you neglected to cite the ENTIRE Utah statute. You cite the Statute for Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving. The truck driver was the victim and again, Payne stated there was no probable cause. You cannot apply that law in this situation.

    “(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).”

    https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S520.html?v=C41-6a-S520_2017050920170509#41-6a-520(1)
    Index Utah Code
    Title 41 Motor Vehicles
    Chapter 6a Traffic Code
    Part 5 Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving
    Section 522 Person incapable of refusal.

    41-6a-522. Person incapable of refusal.
    Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.
    Enacted by Chapter 2, 2005 General Session

    https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6a/41-6a-S520.html
    Effective 5/9/2017
    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).

    It’s not automatic and you do not waive you rights under Utah laws to a search and seizure just because you are a private or commercial driver. The police are not allowed to just “do what they want” unless they have probable cause. You can try to logic, short cite or flat out apply the wrong statutes all you want, it doesn’t make it true.

  • bacchys

    He specifically says he’s arresting her for telling him “no.” That seems like something from which malicious intent could be drawn. However, the supervisor who babbles at her while she’s sitting handcuffed in the cruiser misstates the law, so maybe this is just one of those “ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you’re in law enforcement” situations (Heien v. North Carolina).

    She read him the policy, which was an agreement between the police department and the hospital. She even tells him that’s what it was. He wasn’t listening. He was angry that she wasn’t respecting his authoriteh, so I don’t see how your description of this is accurate. You’ve significantly softened what occurred.

    There’s also the fact that this is only an issue because her lawyer made the video public. There’s no indication that any officer there reported this unlawful arrest, or that any of the involved police departments had any intent on addressing this before then.

  • Sweetbriar

    Payne was angry, so he resorted to a physical threat – immediately laying hands on the person he could most successfully intimidate. If he gave a damn about the law, he would have asked to see the agreement his own department had with the hospital regarding patient searches and discussed that with his supervisor. It might have taken all of five more minutes. He might have calmed down enough to stop thinking about how dare that bitch tell me I can’t do what I want to do and remember something about probable cause and how that didn’t apply here. But he didn’t. Instead, he thought his and the detective’s write up would be enough to cover actual videos of what he did and said.

    Being a police officer doesn’t mean you know the law and what you are doing is right. Being a good police officer does. A good police department polices its own first, or the public will do it for you.

  • Joe Westmount

    First, in nearly 100% of the time a ICU patient gets an admission tox screen. A police officer “in the know” would know that. Since this individual was not under arrest. A simple subpoena for the medical records would suffice.

    The analysis of the incident by “snarky cop” is defective in this way. The police officers were trespassing in that hospital unit. They had NO RIGHT TO BE IN THERE. They had no warrant. They had no patient to question. Even stipulating that a court would rule a blood draw by the Police Phlebotomist lawful or unlawful. How would need identify the exact patient? Its against HIPA which is overarching federal law , and presumably UTAH law to even identify a patient without the foundation basis that snarky cop stipulates is not present. If the cop went room to room looking at ID tags, that futher compounds the CRIME, yes CRIME. Going into a patient room unauthorized is a violation, and touching them is assault.

    Snarky cop leaves out the manhandling and assault of this RN. Who was acting in good faith. Since it was an illegal arrest, ( which by the way the mayor stipulated it was). In Utah it is felony to assault a healthcare worker. The whole reason why Police now have phlebotomists, is because its established caselaw that nurses and doctors do not have to aid in criminal investigations by performing procedures. So courts and governments provide their own professionals. Arresting this nurse flies in the face of that.

    In addition, the manner in which she was treated is seen from many angles. Its abusive and overreaching. How

    I usually side with the police. However as a physician, the two principle suspects ( lt james tracey, and Jeff payne) committed gross acts of misconduct and police brutality.

    Last there is the bodycam of Jeff payne, in the end when he realizes he is not in a good position. He opines, I wonder how this will effect my golden cross job? ….. He then offers that he will bring the good patients elsewhere and bring the transients to the University.

    We can only wonder why given these comments the motives of both those policeman. Since the patient was not at fault in the accident. What was the clear need to obtain blood now, when the information is readily attainable down the line.
    Would the blood be tampered with? Who knows. The public s imagination goes wild.

    I see several UNINFORED presumably policemen answering how the patient cannot refuse the blood test.
    This is ALARMING!!!!. Patients certainly can, and the legal remedy from the police is to obtain a warrant or start proceedings to revoke a license. Thats is it. If the patient is comatose those proceedings cannot even take place.

  • Jon

    I can’t support your words here. As an active police officer I can’t honestly see how any reasonable individual can defend this officer’s poor decision making.

    Additionally, the male Victim and I stress that word Victim heavily, was a lawful semi driver at the wrong place at the wrong time. In no way should he be compelled to give blood when this collision was precipitated by the actions of a suspect fleeing from the law.

    Now, to speak on the pursuing officer’s involvement in this mess; I police in the Province of British Columbia, Canada where we as officers abide by a very strict pursuit policy. Essentially, the only time we engage in a full on pursuit is if the immediate risk to the public caused by letting this person successfully evade police greatly outweighs the risk to the public caused by police engaging in a high speed pursuit. These occasions are rare. Examples would be an active kidnapping or ongoing evolving violence in a vehicle. Or violent offences involving weapons where we believe danger to the public is immanent/very likely without immediate police intervention

    I don’t know the reason for the pursuit in this incident, but if it was for a simple traffic violation or even an active arrest warrant, the police were wrong. There are safer ways to deal with situations like this. We here in British Columbia, Canada, have discovered them and use them actively and with success.

    At the end of the day, the arrest of this nurse was fully illegal and there is no defense for this officer.

  • Divemedic

    Regardless, it is not a citizen’s job to decide what is lawful and unlawful and then resist cops. Even lawyers and judges don’t always get it right, even with weeks to research each case. That is why we have courts, lawyers, and trials. So yes, as a nurse, you allow the cop to draw the blood, but voice your objection if you feel you must. Then, you either call the cop’s supervisor to complain, or let the attorneys handle it. What you don’t do is physically interfere.

    The driver not being the one at fault doesn’t always matter. In many states (I can’t speak for Utah) if a driver is intoxicated, it doesn’t matter whose “fault” the accident was, the accident is now the impaired driver’s fault. I saw a man get 15 years for vehicular manslaughter when a woman ran a stop sign in front of him, and she was killed in the accident. All because his BAC was .082.

    • Joe Westmount

      Divemedic, you are wrong. She was not resisting. Health care professionals cannot be compelled to aid police in invasive procedures. Settled law, that is why they have Police phlebotomist.

      So then we have the situation of a rogue watch commander, telling a policemen to search the hospital for a patient. She was simply relaying the policy for the police. The proper procedure is the police contact the hospital risk/managment /privacy officer with the request. Then if legal they direct staff how to procede.

      When you work with real patients, you cannot reveal even the fact that they exist in your hospital. There names or locations. This is HIPAA and settled law.

      There is no stretch of law that would allow that without a warrant.

    • Duane Suddeth

      you, sir, are a retarded idiot. LEARN the law before you open up your stupid suckhole here

    • Brian Brandt

      She did not ‘resist.’ She refused to assist.

  • kurtb

    This was a trained phlebotomist who should have been fully aware of the laws and regardless if he was following orders from his superior, there was absolutely no just cause to lunge at the nurse to arrest her like she was some hardened criminal who might have a weapon on her. This was a bully with a badge who didn’t like the fact he was being told no. Backed up with the fact that afterwards he showed his spite by saying he was going to send all the transients to this hospital and all the good patients else where. The supervisors are just as equally culpable as they 1. gave the order and 2. sat on the video evidence for more than a month doing nothing until it went public. There is a serious institutional issue that is only going to get better when the departments are more transparent with more body cams and better access to the footage by the public.

  • Kimberly Dockery Spohn

    Sorry…as an RN with 27 years in emergency nursing all at a Level ! Trauma Center, with experience in administration, I can tell you the comments made here are wrong. The police do NOT have the right to come in and ask for blood to be drawn by their agent from any patient, unless the patient consents. If the patient is under arrest, that is still a sticky situation, because the patient has not been charged with anything. A warrant does not even secure the police’s right to collect blood, search is external and does not necessarily mean the offender has to provide the evidence that could help the police. Every hospital has policies that protect the patient, the staff and help the police. Our Trauma Center has a very similar policy that does not allow blood or body fluids from an unconscious person, who clearly cannot consent. The key word here everyone is forgetting is PATIENT! The person is a patient, he is in the care of healthcare processionals who are licensed and obligated to protect and serve just like the police. The police may have an obligation, but they are not allowed to interfere in anyway with the care and treatment of a patient, which was very obviously happening. When a patient comes in in the condition this patient was in. there is more blood and body fluids collected than the police would ever draw. As I have told many a police officer, as I ushered them out of the room, you may subpoena the medical record, but you may not touch my patient. I know there is concern for chain of command, but most courts accept medical records as evidence, I can attest to this as true, as I have testified more times than I ever cared to. This police officer should have waited for hospital administration and for his own supervisor to deal with this. This nurse was doing her job. He should be punished, the department should be punished for condoning this behavior and this nurse and the hospital should file a lawsuit against this policeman and the department. Policeman need to work as partners with other emergency providers, there needs to be a level of understanding and trust. We should never have to read about a fireman or nurse being arrested for doing their job. As an emergency nurse, I do my best to accommodate police, fire, EMS and I know most people who work in emergency services are very respectful of each other…but this guy….he is the reason police get a bad name. Instead of supporting his bad behavior…maybe you could support the emergency nurse who was going her job!

  • Jonas Blane ll

    See Detective Jeff Payne thought he could mistreat her like cops do Black females. He forgot that Nurse Wubbles is not only a white woman but an Olympic hero. She competed in 1998 and 2002 Olympics. Now he’s suspended with pay. Expect charges and suspension without pay to come soon.

    • Brian Brandt

      ‘Attractive White Woman In Peril’ is always a TV news winner. Too bad she wasn’t some powerless black woman.

      /sarcasm off

  • Robert Kerr
  • Robert Kerr
  • Robert Kerr
    • Jennifer

      & why did she get a apology after 2 months while Max Payne(jeff payne) is still on the job when in fact this happened on July 26, 2017???

      Didn’t police chief & mayor already see the video at least by 1st August???

      Why apologize when the story not just only went national but International???

  • Joe Westmount

    Several things will happen in the next days, weeks and months.
    First the members of the force who hid this issue will come under scrutiny. Even a witty seemingly legal explanation doesnt hide the fact that officials seemed to have been blindsided.

    Second the office who arrested her will likely lose his police job. The ambulance company will fire him. They cannot risk losing federal medicare dollars. Medicare will suspend payment while investigating the on camera allegations that there is diversion of patients. A serious issue.

    The lt james tracey has some more interesting issues. Seems that he had been specifically asked to leave the premise of that hospital for trying the same tactics in the past. Patients are comparing notes and if and when the Congressional hearing happen. ( They will) He can plead the fifth when subpoenaed.
    Oh I doubt he will graduate with his masters in December…. From Columbia College..

  • jpmct

    Nobody mentions the physician involved in the case. Wasn’t he “in charge”? When do medical bystanders get to order blood tests? Why wasn’t an unconscious trauma victim not screened for alcohol or drugs – or was it already done and nobody bothered to ask?

    The standard answer from a phlebotomist to a police inquiry should have been to consult the treating physician.

    If hospital policy was different, then – to paraphrase Charles Dickens – Hospital Policy is an ass!

  • yerbullshit

    I am very much on the side of supporting our LEO’s, but as former military, the higher priority is the Constitution, and our (citizens) rights. Based on the video alone, the trucker did nothing wrong, so there was NO ‘probable cause’ to draw blood from him. If there is a state law Requiring a blood draw, that should have been stated in the article. I applaud the nurse for protecting her patient.

    • David Maggard

      Some are pointing out that fed regs for CDLs mandate testing after an accident, but that testing is done by the employer and can be refused, just like you can refuse a breathalyzer under implied consent states, nothing in the CDL regs allow cops to draw/test blood w/o a court order/warrant, consent, or an arrest.

    • Brian Brandt

      The ‘probable cause’ is that the high-speed pursuit resulted in a fatality. The police department is grasping at any straw (the truck driver may have been impaired) to divert liability.

  • Ljubica48

    The nurse (and probably the hospital) has no cotton-picking business getting involved in any evidentiary issue. The admissibility of any evidence rests with the courts, which will decide the issues as to how it was obtained as it pertains to whether it is admissible at trial during the standard hearing on motions to suppress. That is why judges and lawyers exist, especially since search and seizure law and exigency is a moving target which can change on a daily basis. They should have charged the nurse with practicing law without a licence. Along with resisting arrest.

    • Joe Westmount

      Ljubica48, when you enter the hospital how will you find the patient? Will you go door to door. Do that.
      Will you arrest healthcare providers for not assisting in your gustapo investigation. The law is clear. If you a P.O, tell us where you work, so we can make sure you dont anymore. These actions shock the conscience. It puts a spotlight on a very big problem here. There seems to be a sizeable portion of the P.O. that are either ignorant of the law. Or not worried about violating that.
      A criminal investigation has been ordered. And likely there will be felony counts. This was not a misunderstanding. This was a pattern of strongarm tactics. Supporting them only gives fuel for people who hate law and order.

      Simply, the act of drawing blood is a invasive procedure. Healthcare providers have no duty to assist law enforcement. This is settled law. The process to obtain evidence is via a warrant. And even in that case. Unless the information is readily available , if blood is requested a court appointed person is sent to do the draw.

      Police cannot command professionals to perform acts. Even judges do not order such things. That is why police phlebotomist exists. Because no RN can perform any procedure without a doctors order.

      Your argument has no legal standing.

    • Barry

      Neither the nurse nor the hospital administrators did get involved in in any evidentiary issue. They got involved in patient care and privacy issues — in other words, their job. They even went the extra mile to assist Detective Payne in making the right decision by explaining the current policies. The administrator can be heard on the phone telling him he is making a mistake, trying to prevent him from making a possibly fatal career decision.

      Unfortunately, Detective Payne chose not to listen and will suffer consequences. His status with the Police Department will be decided with due process but his ambulance job is as good as gone. No EMS provider will continue to employ somebody who admits to patient steering. In fact many states will revoke the certification of EMT/Paramedics who engage in such practices.

    • Duane Suddeth

      stop being an idiotic moron and LEARN the law like you are supposed to….remember that ignorance of the law is no excuse. the cop in question KNEW he needed a warrant and decided to try to intimidate an innocent nurse. he got all butt hurt because she knew the law and arrested her unlawfully. I’d have shot the fucking pig.

    • Mike M

      I love this shitty attempt at justifying the indefensible. “If the police want to violate your or somebody’s 4th amendment rights. let them! Then sort it out in court after the fact.” That’s not how the law works and for that matter, that’s not how our constitution works. If a police officer gives you an unlawful command, then by definition, it is unlawful. Here I’ll spell it out even simpler since you seem very thick headed in your condescending response: no person is required to comply with an illegal command.

      As for “the nurse practicing law without a license…resisting arrest” LOL wow. I mean, wow. Are you an active LEO? If so please be honest. We need to get you off the force and mental help ASAP.

    • Brian Brandt

      ‘Evidence’ is not the issue. Advocating for her patient is the issue.

  • Glenn Martin

    Another case of the criminal being treated like the victim. Common Sense dictates when a person is killed during an accident Breath AND Blood Tests are Required. WTF is Wrong with people today. If the Police are Wrong Charge them, Same applies to the driver who caused the death. If the driver is found to be impaired by drugs or alcohol Arrest and Charge him. Their’s too Many BS Laws Out There Today Thanks To This Politically Correct GARBAGE We Live Under. OH Somebody Hurt My Feelings Ect. Give Me A Break, Enough Of This BS Already!!!

    • REALConservative

      So did the Constitution bang your boyfriend or have you
      always just hated American liberty?

    • Jay Pee

      You obviously have a keen grasp of the facts of this case.

    • MPAobserver

      I can’t even…. please. IF you are a veteran, thank you for your service. But you are also a blithering idiot.

      “Porter and Wubbels declined to release information about the patient, but Payne’s report identifies him as 43-year-old William Gray, a reserve officer in the Rigby, Idaho, Police Department, who suffered burns during a July 26 crash in Cache County.
      Gray is a truck driver when he is not serving as a reserve police officer, according to the Idaho State Journal.
      At about 2 p.m. on July 26, Gray was driving a semi north on State Road 89/91 near Sardine Canyon when a man fleeing from the Utah Highway Patrol crashed a pickup truck into him head-on, according to Logan police, who investigated the collision.
      The crash caused an explosion and fire, Logan police have said. Gray was on fire when he exited the semi. The driver of the pickup truck, Marcos Torres, 26, died at the scene”

      How is the victim a criminal again? I hope I didn’t micro-trigger your uber-snowflakeyness.

  • jamaicajoe

    So what if Payne believed the blood draw was lawful. Ignorance of the law is never a defense. Secondly as a trained phlebotomist, he should have been well aware the blood draw was unlawful without a warrant. He would have done better to back off and call the states attorney to produce a warrant.

  • Taboo llc

    blah blah blah 🙂 AMERICAN COPS ARE OUT OF CONTROL.

  • Dexter Morgan

    Sounds like a bunch of BS excuses- There is no excuse to treat a nurse in than manner like she was a criminal.

  • David Maggard

    Interesting, in the video he says he is going to arrest her for “interfering with criminal investigation”, the only statute I find close to that is Title 76 Chapter 8 Part 3 Section 306, Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings( https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter8/76-8-S306.html?v=C76-8-S306_1800010118000101 ), which anyone can read and see she didn’t commit:
    (a) provides any person with a weapon; — NOPE
    (b) prevents by force, intimidation, or deception, any person from performing any act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person; — NOPE
    (c) alters, destroys, conceals, or removes any item or other thing; — NOPE
    (d) makes, presents, or uses any item or thing known by the actor to be false; — NOPE
    (e) harbors or conceals a person; — NOPE
    (f) provides a person with transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; — NOPE
    (g) warns any person of impending discovery or apprehension; — NOPE
    (h) warns any person of an order authorizing the interception of wire communications or of a pending application for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications; — NOPE
    (i) conceals information that is not privileged and that concerns the offense, after a judge or magistrate has ordered the actor to provide the information; or — NOPE
    (j) provides false information regarding a suspect, a witness, the conduct constituting an offense, or any other material aspect of the investigation. — NOPE

  • Randy Mason

    Apology is not good enough, both cops need to be charged criminally and she should be awarded monetary damages

  • Liberalism is a Disease

    In the end, it would have been as simple as the detective, or lieutenant, calling a judge and waiting five or ten minutes to get a warrant. There’s just no excuse for treating citizens like this. This was simply a few assholes trying to show their perceived power. I hope she sues the hell out of the PD.

    • David Maggard

      No competent judge is gonna give a warrant under these circumstances, there was nothing to suggest the patient had done anything wrong, he was hit head on by a driver in his lane fleeing the police

    • Brian Brandt

      There’s just no excuse for treating citizens like this.

      Of course there is. This is a clear case of Contempt of Cop. An example has to be made.

      /sarcasm off

  • Adam House

    This write-up is absolute horse-manure.
    My response to this is the same as I already posted in another group: “It is an absolute necessity that professional healthcare workers know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they will be defended to the death in the conduct of their duties caring for a patient; especially considering this puts them in the unfortunate position of also being the front-line defense of the human and constitutional rights of an incapacitated patient.
    I am a combat veteran, and choose normally to be a peaceful person; but I will still royally fuck up anyone who puts their hands on a medic in the conduct of protecting an incapacitated patient. Any person who wears a uniform or call themselves a patriot should do the same. I don’t care what costume you have on, what piece of metal you wear on your chest, or what government-issued weapon you carry at your side – if I’m in the room and something like this scenario goes down, I swear to fucking Allah that I would put the cop down in a heartbeat and he will have to be the next patient; and any self-respecting veteran or public servant who claims to stand for any god-damned thing at all would do the same. If I were back in the military and of rank to do so, and this scenario happened under my command; the nurse would already have a commendation, and the turd in the uniform would be sitting in jail.
    The question we should all be asking is, “what were all the other cops doing standing around letting this happen?” There are absolutely no moral, legal, ethical, or reasonable excuses! Every single one of them should be fired. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it – just fired. Do not pass go, do not collect $200; don’t worry about reprimands and reassignments; just every one of the cops present in that room who didn’t act to defend this nurse from their fellow cop is a disgrace and have demonstrated their incompetence and lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights or civil liberties such that THEY SHOULD NOT BE COPS!
    This victimized town needs to lead the whole country by firing this police force; it is obviously institutionally and irredeemably inundated in a culture that doesn’t even embrace the first principles of life and liberty – or even the personal property of owning one’s own blood. THAT CANNOT and MUST NOT be tolerated by Americans, period. The mayor’s public statement and response is so weak as to be troubling for the state of human liberty and freedom in that town. Hopefully this nursing staff can at least count on the continued support of the hospital. If nothing else, any medic out there can count on me!
    SALUTE to Nurse Wubbels!”
    – Adam G. House, U.S. Army (retired) 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, OEF VIII Veterans of Kunar Province, Afghanistan

    • Joe Westmount

      Adam, thank you for your service. Know that in the month of September, Congress will have hearings and several healthcare unions and organizations are lobbying for hearings. Many of the parties will have to lawyer up and plead the 5th.

  • hokiefireman

    Plain and simple this is a case of unlawful arrest. Police officer needs to be fired and his department needs to be sued.

  • fishin_in_the_muck

    Sounds like the nurse knew more about the law than the police!

  • J38

    “The cops are not your friends nor are they heroes, they are the bloody spear-point of all political will.” -Buppert

  • robway56 .

    Tracy and Payne plus the officers involved in the high speed chase are at the very least criminally negligent.

  • D R

    There is no way the officer would have arrested a male nurse in this situation. He was exerting his aggressiveness on a female.

  • Michael Williams

    So, the Cops are chasing a pickup. Pickup crashes as a result of being chased by police. Person who was crashed into by pickup suddenly become subject to a blood draw because cops made someone crash into him? Lol. Only cops could make that $hit up.

  • Jeff Perkins

    That cop lost his cool…..not good, that could’ve gone down a lot smoother IMO. He deserves whatever he gets. That nurse did not deserve that treatment….period.

  • Bailey9778

    I have 3 cops on our family and I keep telling them to POLICE THEIR OWN or someday they will be treated like this woman. And you Cops wonder why the public hates you! I don’t hate you but I think YOU should receive DOUBLE the penalty of the ones you cite others for instead of having the damn union getting you off and going back to work. A State Patrolman in Ohio MASTURBATED TO PORN with his step son and they did NOTHING to him, NOTHING. Google it if you don’t believe me! Where were the other cops about this, NOT A SINGLE COP ARRESTED this jerk, it was a newspaper that brought it to surface and then nothing happened anyway, HE ALMOST GOT HIS JOB BACK !

    • Jennifer

      Why would expect something to be done?

      Who pays for the settlements?

      The money is all that force change.

  • KooKKy

    The nurse behaved professionally. The officer lost his composure and turned up the heat.

  • Gwamma

    Without a warrant, the man being under arrest and him not being conscious, it was unlawful to attempt a draw. Det Douche Payne and his supervisor need to be fired

  • Wow ! I am so so pissed at watching this- this officer needs to be punished, FIRED and no longer work anywhere with any police force ever again – assault, attempted to abduct, kidnapping or abduction and whatever else can be thrown at him for improperly representing the city, the uniform and misrepresenting the district and other fellow officers by misuse of his shield and making up his own law and going against company policy on both ends to try to force her to do the same, which should protect everyone. For him to improperly try to get his own way and an illegal blood draw by means of threat and or black mail, aggressive behavior, etc…. and lets not forget making this poor nurse look bad for doing her job properly and following protocol – HIS ASS SHOULD BE GONE !!! There is no room for this   Excuse my language – All Lives Matter !!! Great job on the nurses part !!!

  • Jay Pee

    Excerpts from Payne’s bodycam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExJDcDaXhJ8

    where him and two officers discussed how to go about doing this. Lt Tracy admitted he didn’t know that drawing blood was already SOP for this hospital when they admit the victim/patience so all this was unnecessary.

  • James M

    Regardless of all your speculating in this ridiculous article, the trucker was an innocent victim here. That was quite clear in the video. There was no probable cause or any “exigent circumstances” in this case. Law enforcement in this case was clearly in the wrong and had no right to be asking for the blood draw in the first place. This is just another case of a cop getting pissed off that he didn’t get his way then abusing his authority. This man and his supervisor have no place being in law enforcement. Both should be fired but the unfortunate truth is that they are both getting a paid vacation and will be back at work once things calm down.

  • JR Hannafin

    Well reasoned article. I’d like to add that the detective was aware that there was no probable cause to draw the blood, because he mentioned it while on the phone with his leuitenant

  • Chad Koelling

    Belief that something is lawful does not make it so.

  • Deanna Polk

    Your apologist article is part of the problem, not the solution. This nurse was doing her job lawfully and respectfully, the officer was out of his jurisdiction. This is another reason why officers should not be allowed to draw blood. This patient was the victim of a high speed police chase, not the perpetrator, hence there was no ethical, moral, or legal reason for them to draw blood. As a nurse for over twenty years I have always thought most police and medical staff were on the same team, but after watching this video, and after some encounters with local police on different matters, including being stalked by an officer, at my hospital, interfering with my giving a patient blood, I now know different. There is always a closing of the ranks with police officers when their behavior is questioned and that is not good for any organization. What he did in this video was clearly criminal. He assaulted this woman doing her job, why did he need to handcuff her in the first place? She posed no threat, she was unarmed. You can hear the emotion in his voice at being told “no” when he said “But she is the one who said no”, and violently grabbed her.
    I’ve had the responsibility of caring for several police officers as patients over the years. Wouldn’t you want the same protection as she gave her patient? We patch your bullet wounds, we carry your bedpans and wipe your butts, we clean up your vomit, we reassure you, we protect your rights to privacy as a patient when you are at your most vulnerable, and now we have to worry about getting arrested?! The Brotherhood in Blue needs to step up and speak out against this kind of illegal behavior or you will be causing a rift between those who should be working side by side.
    Sincerely,
    Deanna Polk RN, PHN, MSHS (Masters of Science in Homeland Security)

  • Charles Ashton

    Why is ignorance of the law an excuse for a police officer enforcing the law but not for a citizen? The article says the officer may not have been trained on the change in the law that happened in 2008. How can that be a defense? The police used to be held to a higher standard but now they are held to a lower standard than any other citizen.

  • Nikki Ivison Lombard

    Sad & ridiculous. The most important & to the point is watch the
    video clip of the nurse arrested. She was standing for her patient, and
    hospital following policy and procedures. Never once was she
    condescending, irate, or non-compliant. She handled this extremely well.
    I do question where was the charge nurse, director etc in this matter. This officer should be reprimanded in a serious manner, more than
    administrative leave. This man was very out of hand & this is a very
    unfortunate event. All emergency personnel are there to work together.
    This man is a safety issue to the public. ER personnel, as well as other
    emergency services, are consistently faced with stressing
    issues/threats/abuse, and this must stop. I commend Alex Wubbels in her
    composure throughout it all, & pray for the recovery of the victim
    in the crash.

  • JacobBe5

    “Any time there is a collision resulting in death, it’s normal to determine if anybody involved was impaired. ”
    Please cite the legal authority (the particular Utah statute) which allows the police to demand (without warrant) a blood sample of a person who has been involved in a collision and the person MUST comply. The closest I found said a CDL driver may have their CDL revoked if they refuse to have a breath or alcohol test. That alone implies they can refuse, that their consent is required.

    Which raises the question, why has Jeff Payne not been arrested on suspicion of aggravated kidnapping? Why has James Tracy not been arrested on suspicion as an accomplice of some type?

    Because here is the deal, the police do not get to preemptively do whatever they like. We often give police a benefit of the doubt initially. But once their actions come into doubt the burden to demonstrate legality is on them. It isn’t that anyone needs to show the police did something illegal, the police need to demonstrate what they did was lawful. It is preemptively unlawful to kidnap people. So they need to prove they were legally allowed to commit the acts they had performed.

    “However, it is unlikely that Detective Payne believed that the order was unlawful.”
    Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

    “Police officers are responsible for being aware of well-established case law, and if it’s determined that the arrest was unlawful, both Detective Payne, Lt. Tracy, and the department would be liable.”
    These suspects need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Including arrest, setting (or refusing) bail, trial, and potentially sentencing.

    Not simply placed on administrative (paid) leave and maybe something will happen to them. Not going to hold my breath for justice to be served. Over a month after the police reviewed the video they had still done nothing. Only when the public found out did anything even start to happen.

  • Becky White Park Wilkerson

    In this case there was no reason to be drawing blood from the man because he was the victim and did not cause the crash. the police are just trying to find a scape goat. The nurse was in the right and they know it. I do hope she sues them because they need to be accountable for their actions and the nurse was treated very mean and was innocent.

  • Phil White

    Exigent circumstances judicial interpretation of the 4th is completely garbage and is a perfect example of very contemporary Judicial activism. I have never found anything from English Common law to support this vague notion. Cops throw around the word “suspicious” all day long coupled with “Exigent circumstances” and the extreme propensity toward Machiavellianism and society will have no law, the law will be dead. So please purge this idea of justifying every unlawful things that cops do by saying Exigent circumstances to rest for good.

  • Rusty Blake

    It doesn’t matter whether the officer believes the watch commander issued a lawful order or not…the fact of the matter was that it wasn’t. “Ignorance of the law is not a defense”…every single day citizens across the country face this issue, and yet police don’t. I am very pro-cop, but I still don’t think that they are above the laws that they enforce. Both the watch commander and the arresting officer are guilty of 4th Amendment violations. They both should be charged, and if convicted, both should lose their license and pension.

  • IdahoMan

    Grab a chair or an IV stand or something and beat the !@#$# out of that guy! This is a good reminder that nurses should carry some key-chain mace when they work.

    Payne should be arrested for assault.

  • mtlhd1955

    BULLSHIT!! The trucker was an innocent victim of a crime. The Police Depts. (Logan AND Salt Lake City) both overstepped their grounds. The Nurse, and subsequently the Hospital, had the Legal Documents that trump the actions of the Police in this case. This is one case, of many, that shows a power hungry jackboot gestapo COP. This is one case, of many, that gives our Men In Blue a bad name. And since the COP was “involved” in the process of creating the accident he, by law, should of had HIS BLOOD DRAWN, and examined.

  • dhd123

    The simple answer to this whole ordeal is this: 1) By hospital policy, agreed to w/law enforcement, the nurse was prohibited from taking a blood sample for law enforcement without a warrant, without the person’s permission or he was under arrest . 2) Even if the detective is a trained phlebotomist, did he have privileges at that hospital? If someone needed open heart surgery and a top heart surgeon was standing right there, the surgeon would not or could not operate without being granted privileges by the hospital for insurance reasons. If the cop would have taken the drivers blood, he would open himself to charges.

    • Phil White

      Yea in Utah a cop my get charged but the judge will dismiss. That would be the case for Shawn Cowley the only police officer who has been charged in Utah that I can think of.
      A cop can put you under arrest for anything, certainly away to get around the Bill of Rights.

  • Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you’re going to apply that to regular people you must apply it to police. Payne and Tracy should be arrested, prosecuted and jailed. And fired. The chief and mayor should both resign.

  • Brian Brandt

    What happens if a patient codes while the E.R. nurse is locked in handcuffs in a police car? What then, smart guy?

    • VaHam

      No one has delved into if there was any harm done not only the patient from which they sought blood sample but any others in the burn unit during the time of this encounter, to my knowledge

  • Brian Brandt

    If blood samples from all parties in an accident resulting in a fatality
    are required what was the result on the blood sample taken from the
    pursuing officer?

    • VaHam

      Or were the Det. & Lt. tested for steroids and PCP ? 🙂

  • powerclam

    Salt Lake City police have a well-earned bad reputation.
    The reason for this incident is simple: Someone told the cops “No” and that they simply can’t abide.
    Too bad, this is gonna cost them (the taxpayers).
    Cops are necessary – they don’t have to be a necessary evil, though.

    • Brian Brandt

      I was not aware that SLC cops had a bad rep. I assume from your post that COC (contempt of cop) is a felony – or at least a class 3 misdemeanor.

  • Dave Varner

    It seem the article is an attempt to pass the buck to the Lt. away from an out of control detective. If he made detective in your department then he should know the procedures that were in plain place for this type blood draw and so should the LT. It sounds like your making excuses for bad conduct. I was an LEO for 31yrs and know that there is SOP in every Dept dealing with this type incident. As a final thought anyone using a fake name like Snarky Cop isn’t someone I would put much faith in their opinions.

  • CAV

    You wrote, “Any time there is a collision resulting in death, it’s normal to determine if anybody involved was impaired.”

    That is a complete fabrication. Unless there is PC to believe someone is under the influence, there is no legal justification to force a BAC. PERIOD.

    The biggest problem with LE today is not that Officer screw up. It’s the rest of the officers, especially leadership, who defend those screw ups.

    If the BAC was so important to this Officer, why did he disregard the draw to falsley arrest the nurse.

    Signed,

    A 24 year Police vet

  • Knights Hawk

    I support the police in every way possible. In this case, it’s impossible.
    The officer is of an age where he should have been taught about Constitutional protections. What he wanted was obviously a search. A warrantless search, an obvious violation of 4th Amendment rights.
    He wanted to search a man that was not under arrest, who was not suspected of a crime, and who could not consent.
    I don’t care what his Lt. said, the officer assaulted a nurse who was doing her job while he was going outside the bounds of the law. The cop needs fired. Maybe his Lt. does, too.
    In this case, I truly hope the nurse sues both he and his department for false arrest and assault under the color of law.
    This man abused his authority, and that authority should be revoked.

  • tanya morris

    One point. Any critical patient will have a central line for giving IV fluids, medications and…drawing blood. This can only be accessed by a trained nurse or MD. The officer was asking the nurse to draw the blood FOR him. As nurses our job is patient advocacy, especially when they are unable to do so for themselves. She acted correctly.

  • Liberal? Like Tom Jefferson!

    As I watched the video, I could hear at least one other LEO asking “why not get a warrant”? To which the Sgt. replied- “No probable cause”. So, I find it hard to believe he thought the LT’s orders were lawful.
    Supporting my disbelief, the Utah law, which had been in place for ten years, and which governs implied consent draws didn’t apply in this case. Birchfield was decided a year BEFORE this, and the Sgt’s major duty assignment is drawing blood. It seems rather odd that he had ” failed to receive training on case law updates:. Frankly, it seems flatly ridiculous. In the immediate aftermath of Birchfield, the LEAs I am personally familiar with (both state and local) held multiple trainings, issued new directives, and generally made sure everyone was aware of the new legal requirements. We’ve since incorporated that into all our DUI training course.
    What did they do in Utah? Just ignore it?
    This seems to be a case of an superior officer just ignoring the law, and a on-scene LEO deciding better to bend the law than upset the boss.

  • David Sorrells

    “No lawsuit has been filed at this time.” That should change on Tuesday imho..

    • Jennifer

      not changed as yet , also this happened in July.

  • Denver Bob

    In real life – Doodoo happens … The jist of the matter is the trucker was not under arrest therefore by not charged with a crime, the drawing of blood would’ve been against the truckers constitutional rights. Whether the police officer drew the blood and then found out the trucker was not impaired, or even if the detective found out the trucker was impaired it would’ve been poisoned fruits and thrown out of court, At best, and at worst the detective could’ve been charged for illegal search and seizure – violating the trucker’s constitutional rights.

    Now the city has apologized, a settlement with the nurse from harassment may be in order. And then everyone is learned a lesson….

    I hope the trucker is OK – and can get back to his livelihood soon.

    • Jay Pee

      You can only wonder what would’ve happened had the video not been made public. This incident happened over a month ago.

    • Jennifer

      Who pay’s for the settlement?

      Ya that’s right. not the city, you, the Tax payer.

      • Denver Bob

        Hopefully both police officers would be involved, and maybe the city Council. Of which the taxpayers have direct control, they can vote them out of office

  • Barry

    Snarky Cop,

    I would love to see this article be amended to better reflect the mission of Blue Lives Matter.

    For instance, “…defending law enforcement from baseless attacks and work to promote the good work of police officers.”
    — This is not an example of the good work performed by police officers every day. It is the kind of thing that brings discredit to the profession and the public outcry is based upon well disseminated facts. If anything, the response among the law enforcement community should be more harsh than that of the public. Which group has the most to lose?

    “We will expose the truth no matter what form it takes.”
    — Accept the truth in this case.

    “…an increasing number of citizens fail to accept responsibility for their actions and attempt to escape the consequences through outward blame.”
    — Don’t aid your peers in doing the same.

    Finally, as “Blue Lives Matter seeks to … strengthen public support…” you’ll never accomplish that unless you’re willing to unequivocally condemn the actions of your peers when it’s appropriate.

    • Brian Brandt

      I am not a regular poster to BLM. I was linked here from another news site. But this case is so egregious that I could not refrain from posting. This case is why people who support the police have a hard time. Get rid of the power-trip cops.

  • Bill Steinhouser

    I can see just from reading the first page of comments, not many of you even read the story. Why don’t you delete your embarrassing comments, read the whole story and start over. All you cop haters can go out, score some meth, go home and clean the place.

  • Tommy Jefferson

    USC 42 depravation of rights under the color of law. His Badge is forfeit. I support professional LEOs not punks like that who hate women.

  • D B

    Thanks for that explanation.

  • Mary

    Question: It states in your article the crash occured 7/26/17. What day did the attempt to draw blood and the subsequent arrest of the nurse take place? If it was more than a few hours, let alone a few days, there would be no “evidence” to find in that patient’s blood. I’m just wondering.

  • Fred Stevens
  • Fred Stevens

    The patient was a police officer. Ponder that for a moment.

  • Jim Marshall

    Ignorance of the law is not a defense for civilians, it most certainly should not be for the police. You did not address the attitude of the cop, the other cops standing by and doing nothing as he assaulted this woman.

  • Goldcoaster

    Wasn’t the trucker an off duty officer? If the nurse files a civil rights suit against the officer and the Lt and they get their qualified immunity thrown out it’s going to be an expensive day in their lives.

  • Nick Nitro

    No matter how much you trust the police, remember the police are trained to never trust you…..

  • Mitsa Waya

    While the dipstick detective may be a ‘certified phlebotomist’, IF he is NOT under a physician’s DIRECT supervision by either direct observation or standing orders, then he can’t do squat no matter his level of training. Is he a member of the hospital staff where this took place? If no, then his training amounts to getting blood from a rock. Was he under direct orders from A PHYSICIAN whom had officially taken responsibility for his actions? If no, see rock statement above.
    Cops generally dont put out fires or treat patients
    Firemen dont arrest people
    Medics dont arrest people, though we DO creatively restrain them for their and our safety during transport
    Bottom line is, the Supreme Court made their ruling over a year ago, took me all of two minutes to find it and scan it for what I was looking for. As most LEO’s say, ignorance is no excuse! This dicktective needs to be removed from Law Enforcement, his LT terminated and those two and the department SUED for violating the nurses civil rights, as well as ALL LEO’s on the scene that let this happen be charged and included in the lawsuit!
    What he did was unconscionable, period!

  • DanDKU

    All that would make sense if ignorance of the law was a valid excuse.

  • Peter

    He is an officer of the Law.
    Therefore, it is important he knows and adheres to the Law.
    He did not.
    He should not be fired for trying to do his job. He should not be fired for arresting the Nurse.
    He should be fired for his aggressive and violent behavior towards a non-combatant, and ultimately innocent, arrested person.

  • Brian Brandt

    I knew this guy in high school. His entertainment on a Saturday was to go down to the local pet store and buy a white mouse. He had a train set in his basement. He would wire up the mouse’s legs to the rheostat and spend the evening slowly electrocuting the mouse.

    Guess what ‘profession’ this guy chose to go into.

  • Don Adkins
    • Jennifer

      I call it the BASTARDIZATION of the American Flag!

    • Jennifer

      the site deleted your post.

  • Todd Murphy

    Following a DUI-DWI arrest, when a forensic alcohol test is being sought as evidence of driving drunk, police officers utilize laws called “implied consent laws” in their state to notify the driver of statutory DUI punishment if the driver REFUSES to submit to an alcohol analysis. The majority of states impose CIVIL drivers license sanctions and conditions, but do not add the risk of criminal punishment for a detained driver’s refusal. This US Supreme Court opinion only addresses laws in the states where CRIMINAL sanctions were added to license suspension or revocation punishments imposed for a driver’s refusal to comply with forensic blood testing.

    This is the reason the cops can draw your blood, the Supreme Court ruled that there cannot be a criminal legal action against you for refusing Implied Consent but there can be a civil action against you.

    Implied consent is the legal doctrine in most states, which governs test of your blood and it applies to you regardless of your being comotose or alert.

    Sorry, the law may suck but it’s the law.

    • Joe Westmount

      You are basing violation of privacy and the ability to assault a patient on CIVIL powers?

      There are no legal opinions out there that support your claim. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of police do things that are illegal. Because the average person cannot fight it or the public is intimidated.

      Police occupy the Criminal relm. Not the civil relm. Just because the Supreme court addressed the criminal doesnt mean that that authority exists to invade a pateints privace and perform a procedure on them just because a police officer is merely curious.

      There is no exigence since the information is likely readily available through a subpoena. Your argument that we ( Police can strap you down and force a blood draw, arrest your nurse and anyone who stops us)_ – we are legally empowered to do so because…. There is no danger of criminal consequences , just civil therefore anything we do is legal. On several points in the recordings, police say the patient was not under arrest. They had no suspicion of illegality…..
      One of the LEO asks , why not get a warrant?, LT says ‘”NO PROBABLE CAUSE” Police have no power to do anything without probably cause. Therefore they cannot hide under the cloak of reasonably believing what they were doing was lawful.

      >>>>Utah Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that drawing blood is not so urgent that officers shouldn’t first get a warrant, although they allowed the blood results to be used as evidence.
      In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated in Missouri v. McNeely that police have to get a warrant to draw blood without a subject’s consent. And last year, the court reiterated in Birchfield v. North Dakota that “implied consent” was not a basis to demand a blood draw.

      http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2017/09/01/paul-cassell-cop-who-arrested-nurse-was-wrong-but-the-law-is-complicated/

      quote from article….
      But while Utah’s law is constitutional, it turns out not to have permitted this specific blood draw. As written, Utah’s law only permits an officer to conduct such a test where he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person from whom blood is to be taken was driving “while in violation of” the laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances. In this case, the detective specifically lacked any such grounds, because the draw was being taken to show the opposite – that the driver was not under the influence. Utah’s implied consent law did not authorize this particular blood draw under these particular circumstances.

    • Jay Pee

      Ummm, but the suspected drunk driver is dead after crashing into the victim’s semi. So yeah, you can get blood from that dead guy w/o consent, just not this victim.

  • rikd57

    Warrant NOT needed! Probable cause NOT required! FEDERAL LAW supercedes state & local law, and hospital agreement. FMCSR 382.303
    https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/drug-alcohol-testing/what-tests-are-required-and-when-does-testing-occur

    • Mobey Dick

      You are an idiot, hopefully you are not Law Enforcement!

      • VaHam

        No I believe rikd57 is a bobtail driver.

      • rikd57

        My point is that because of the CDL/FMCSA requirements, probable cause and warrants are not required.
        I don’t agree with the way CDL drivers are treated by the regulations. I’m just pointing out to John Q. Public that Commercial Drivers virtually give up their Citizenship to drive a truck!

    • Joe Westmount

      loss of a drivers license does not supersede 4th amendment rights and hipaa. It certainly doesnt give local law enforcement the right to arrest a nurse. No legal authority supports your assertion.

    • VaHam

      The driver still has the right to refuse a test. He may loose his CDL but he still has the right to either consent or refuse that is if he is conscious and since he was comatose he clearly could not consent to search. The 4th amendment still prevails over the CFR.

      • rikd57

        I DON’T disagree! He absolutely can refuse… if he wants to lose livelihood! What I disagree with is that the FMCSA penalizes drivers even when the accident is clearly not their fault. Lawyers can dig into the drivers previous week and make a case against a driver.

  • SkiIdahoNorthSouth

    This article would be correct save for 1 small detail. This was a Class A CDL trucker involved in a serious accident. (The word “Involved” does not imply any degree of civil fault, or criminal action) Whole different set of laws apply here. The 2016 changes to implied consent…red herring, born of ignorance but a red herring non-the-less. Not a suspect. Also forgotten in this argument, the blood draw required after nearly any commercial carrier accident can SHIELD the driver and their carrier by removing any shred of doubt as to impairment.

    That said, the administrations of both the Hospital and enforcement agencies let both employees down here by failing to anticipate and plan for a not uncommon scenario.

    • Joe Westmount

      there is nothing unusual here. No new rules are needed. Simply the Nurse is blocked from identifying who the patient is by Hipaa law. The proper way always is police to present a warrant to the hospital administration. Then they make arrangements. Police should never visit or try to visit patients not under arrest.
      The staff will not aide them. Because it is unlawful.

    • Barry

      The administrations did in fact plan for such a scenario. They had a written policy in place agreed to by the hospital and the Police Department. Nurse Wubbels showed this policy to Detective Payne but he and Lt. Tracy chose to ignore it.

      We might wonder why they chose to ignore it. Perhaps the answer can be found in Lt. Tracy’s conversation with the nurse after the arrest when he explains that the policy interferes with “my law.”

  • VaHam

    I disagree with your comment “If he had not been given an order to arrest Wubbels, Detective Payne would have had the discretion to leave her, and likely would have.”. In the video after the arrest during a discussion with Lt. Tracy, Det Payne states he has no problems with going back in there and getting the blood even then, and that was after Lt. Tracy said he was wrong since he was unaware that blood is routinely drawn when a patient first comes into the ER and he could just go get a warrant after the fact instead of ordering blood be drawn. If a warrant could actually have been issued there then something more is wrong there because it seems very clear that not only was there no probably cause there was not even a reasonable suspicion to support any warrant to obtain the victim’s blood.

  • disqus_kyoTUItUKa

    SO the MAN ,who possible was under the influence, because HE WAS POSSIBLE the main contributor to the accident ,IS GOING TO WALK ON A VEHICLE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE?? OH That’s going to make a bunch of DRUNK DRIVERS HAPPY & ALL they have to do is PLAY SLEEP ,because in a lot of the States REFUSAL is an AUTOMATIC CHARGE & Lose of Driver’s License . NOT RIGHT AT ALL

    • Dave from Memphis

      The semi driver, who was injured when the idiot being chased by police swerved into oncoming traffic, is a reserve police officer from Idaho. The main contributor to the accident, the driver who drove into oncoming traffic, died.

    • Joe Westmount

      you dont understand the law. If it was a drunk driver. The police simply have to ascert that he was under arrest for drunk driving, or get a warrant.
      The officers here made it clear this patient was a victim.

  • George Hardin

    So, because the cops were not aware of ‘recent’ laws. Well that being said.. how many times have you heard, ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’?

  • medbob

    In the long form video, the police are heard discussing the fact that they don’t have PC (Probable Cause) for a warrant. If this were to fall under Implied Consent, they should have presented that fact to the judge to obtain a warrant. Utah has procedures for e-warrants that take 20 minutes to execute. The very fact that they COULD have obtained a warrant and instead chose to bully a nurse is telling within itself.
    Blue Lives DO matter, and I support the police 100%, but when they put their toe over the line of individual rights, that toe should be chopped off.
    We cannot afford to have policemen such as these two who use “Impeding” as a bludgeon against ANYONE, let alone a nurse doing her duty. If they will twist this in this case, how many times in the past have they improperly used the “Impeding” canard to bully people into doing their bidding.

    No, if you watch the long form video, it is perfectly clear that this detective and his watch commander are not capable of abstract thought and are not interested in protecting individual rights. Their only consideration is achieving their goals by any means necessary. We need intelligent, disciplined officers. These videos do not provide the picture of anything other than cops out of control who are not serving the public interest. They need to be fired. Now.

    • Jay Pee

      And the fact that the PD hasn’t taken any action in a month until the videos were made public is very telling. Cops cover up for other cops.

  • TKpeterGunn

    I call bullshit. The hospital would have drawn his blood as a matter of routine patient care including for illicit drugs or alcohol as these could effect any medications they may wish to give. The police could subpoena those results. 25 years of public safety AND I was once trained as a phlebotomist. Until this incident I had never heard of a police phlebotomist. The police in the Northeast use the hospital results. While I think your article is objectively written, the fact remains is that police officers don’t like being told “no” and with the availability of force as an option, they don’t have to use reason like the rest of us mere mortals.

  • Dave Hunter

    Did the author of this piece watch the video of Nurse Wubbels’ arrest? Det. Payne is a jerk, wanted to be a jerk, likes being a jerk and conducted himself like a jerk. Arresting a nurse and physically dragging her out of the hospital like that was uncalled for. Was she not going to be there if the duty Lt. took the time to consult with someone smarter than he about whether the PD should arrest her for obstructing an investigation that wasn’t even SLCPD’s?

    The Lt. should be demoted at the very least, because he lacks the brain power to think about the repercussions of his orders. Payne should be disciplined, and the severity of the discipline should take into account his departmental record. I have read elsewhere that he has had anger issues leading to reports on his behavior.

  • Officers are responsible for knowing their oath of office. Apparently these officers don’t know their oaths – that the 4th Amendment is part of it. Also, the Utah Constitution, Art. I Sect. 14 says the same thing.

  • Quaze

    Blue Lives Matter is a terrorist organization

    • Jennifer

      Ofcourse they are, they actively make the lives of honest police officers more difficult, by protecting the bad Kops.

  • renegadesix

    Just going to leave this right here and note that these sick nurses were only suspended while the mob here is howling for blood because…nurse.

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/09/06/5-nurses-suspended-after-opening-body-bag-to-view-deceased-patients-genitals.html

    • VaHam

      So you are NURSE HATER 🙂

      • renegadesix

        Nope. Just taking a page out of the book of you cop haters and using it against you.

        • VaHam

          Nice try …… not falling for it NURSE HATER 🙂

          • renegadesix

            Given that you read judicial opinions that say officer may under certain circumstances obtain blood without a warrant to mean police may never draw blood without a warrant, you’ll forgive me if I am uninterested in what you fall for.

          • VaHam

            🙂 I don’t listen to NURSE HATERS

        • Barry

          Sorry renegadesix but you’ve been labeling just about everybody with a strong opinion about this case as a cop hater. You had to see that coming.

          By the way, the main takeaway from that case is that the incident was reported by a fellow nurse.

          • renegadesix

            Actually, the main takeway is that nurses can be wrong too.

    • Jay Pee

      You some kind of a nursist?

  • Jon Phillips

    What is the probable cause for getting the semi truck drivers blood? He was the victim in this wasn’t he? Looks to me the PD was looking for someone to pin the high speed chase on.

    I can’t remember a time when the blood of a crash victim was so important & time sensitive that a LE would blatantly violate department policy.

  • enufistoomuch

    There has been additional news coverage revealing that a decision was communicated to the detective not to worry about getting a blood sample himself, that the question would be pursued another way.

    There’s another problem here, as an officer assigned to the blood draw unit he has a responsibility to maintain an up to date knowledge of the law. The Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota nearly 15 months ago.Where has our trained phlebotomist police detective been all this time as to be over a year behind the curve on his special duty? If he was given an unlawful order, he is supposed to be the person in a position to know it was unlawful.

    Another item that stands out for me, the angry and tense state of the man reported by Wubbels and others upon his arrival. This was severe enough from the first moments that Wubbels requested security be present for her own protection. That is, or should be, a major red flag on the detective’s behavior that an experienced nurse was immediately afraid of him, concerned enough for her own safety she wanted security on hand.

    There can be no excuse for that forceful, angry, violent arrest of a calm and experienced medical professional simply doing her duty. While I am certainly pleased the department apologized, but I hope the
    investigation results in something more substantial. A firing and a
    charge for assault at the very least.

    Just on background, I have twenty years in EMS/Rescue in a big metro region. Never have I seen law enforcement treat a medical professional like that. Not remotely, not in more emergency scenarios than I can possibly count.

    • VaHam

      I would love to see all the video on this incident. There should be much more from the hospital’s security cameras showing from when Det. Payne first walked into the ER. Also it appears to me that except for a very short segment of the body camera footage comes from one, I believe young officer, at one point one officers says to another “I am recording” to which the other replays “I am too”; but we see virtually nothing of the other officer’s footage.

      I haven’t found the news about Payne being told “not to worry about getting a blood sample” you mentioned do you have a link to that?

      • VaHam

        I did find this video showing more body cam footage Det. Payne and the other SLCPD who responded and had his body cam running. Still not all of the footage since I saw on one of the news report videos a brief clip of Wubbles have the cuffs removed as she was released so I believe there is still more footage out there somewhere.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgB5zBmRe8Y

  • Truth Gun
  • Shawn White

    His actions toward this woman were ILLEGAL! This article and the person who wrote it should be ashamed
    of themselves for even suggesting that there “are two sides” to THIS
    story and that this son of a bitch was doing what he did because he is
    “loyal to his supervisors”. They knew they needed a warrant. With his
    30+ years of “impeccable service” he should have known that he needed a
    warrant. I am absolutely appalled that Blue Lives Matter would come to
    this idiot’s defense. He is a threat and a menace and should be fired. So completely disappointed in Blue Lives Matter for implying that this idiot was just doing his job. I may have to rethink who I support, if this is the kind of idiot that Blue Lives supports.

  • VaHam

    One thought keeps haunting me. Near the end of the encounter Lt. Tracy has a discussion with officers involved at the back of the car. There he says he didn’t think that her simply saying “no” rose to obstruction. It would have been helpful if he had come to that conclusion, before he ordered her arrest. What caused this change of heart? Could it have been because the nurse did not volunteer to cave in and go do what they wanted even after the arrest; when their bluff had been called and they were then in jeopardy at that point? Who knows, I am sure, that and other possibilities will now be explored now that the FBI has been requested to investigate.

  • VaHam

    Oh the way I read it Det. Payne was wrong in demanding a blood test since he stated it was allowed under Implied Consent but the following is from Utah Code:

    “41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug — Number of tests — Refusal — Warning, report.

    (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, 53-3-231, or 53-3-232;
    (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).”

    Note 41-6a-520 (b) requires the officer to have “grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation” commonly know as probable cause. Det. Payne made it a point to state he wanted test to prove that the victim was not in violation and also told the other officer that the reason they didn’t just get a warrant is because they had no probable cause.

  • Jennifer

    Also, The Utah Nurse (Alex Wubbels) is Not Alone — Police Have a History of Abusing Professionals Rendering Aid.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec6cb88e086553493d63ab4fe07219f916dc4077a0bf60ac44ed1a5e4e5d05eb.jpg

    Capt. David Wilson
    Jacob Gregoire
    Maurice White

    As long as the tax-payers keep rolling over and keep apologizing for the ‘bad apples’ nothing will ever change. We are literally financing our own oppression.

  • VaHam

    “Detective’s body camera confirms that Logan police asked him to back off blood draw before nurse’s arrest” from the following article.in the Salt Lake Tribune.
    http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/08/detectives-body-camera-confirms-that-logan-police-asked-him-to-back-off-blood-draw/

  • POLIZEI110

    Hospital policies are written by Hospital Lawyers, who know the law better than any police officer and those policies are guided by the Law. You can spin this anyway you like based on your opinion, but the facts are…this arrest was illegal period.
    I know plenty of police officers and all of them agree this pair, the detective and his supervisor stepped over the line, not only that, they did some serious damage between Police and EMS.
    Police, Fire and EMS all work on the same side, it’s a big family, where we all back each other, don’t be the black sheep of this family and become a dick!

    • VaHam

      Nurse told Det. Payne and the uniformed officer who was sent to assist with the arrest that the policy had been agreed to by SLCPD, when she printed out the written policy and showed it to them. Perhaps if they had been willing to speak with the hospital’s Privacy Officer they could have learned the person(s) in the SLCPD who agreed to the policy and the fact that it met current law.

      The bottom line however is that if Lt. Tracy realized that charges would not stick after the unjust arrest why did he think differently before the arrest and order it; according Det. Payne, which matches up with Lt. Tracy’s alleged threats to have her arrested on the phone when he spoke with her outside the ER?

  • VaHam
  • VaHam
  • VaHam

    The following from Lt. Tracy’s IA Memo of Sustained Complaint below is:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c164d7c93c16f8b7aa46577cb2998686d1e940801df6077bdf8c7814d381f03.png

  • VaHam

    Puzzled why some of my posts don’t seem to stay.
    I keep hearing that Wubbles was “detained” and that is true since Det. Payne told the uniformed backup officer dispatched by Lt. Tracy, as he arrived, in the presence of Wubbles that she was not free to go about her way. She was later placed under arrest later when Det. Payne stated she was under arrest and then forced her out of the ER and placed her in cuffs. Some reports state that she was cuffed and in the car for 20 minutes but she had been detained longer; from the point Payne announced she was not free to go about her way to Wubbles and the uniformed backup. There is a difference between being detained and being arrested.
    https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm

  • VaHam

    Has anyone seen any sign of Miranda rights being explained to Nurse Wubbles before she was questioned in the car by Lt. Tracy? I have not been able to find it in any of the videos posted thus far.

  • VaHam

    One would hope that in the interest of “preservation of evidence” the cell phones of the officers involved in this arrest have been seized. In addition to voice calls and text messages between officers and Logan would be valuable. The IA report memo of Lt. Tracy indicates they believed the arrest to have been a ruse. The question is if that is true had the ruse been discussed with anyone else?

  • VaHam

    Has anyone seen copies of the SLCPD policy which was in effect on July 26th, 2017 when this incident took place and the “new” policy which was put into effect sometime after the video was released? If they have not been released why not?

  • VaHam

    I believe today marks one week after the 20 day deadline for the officers to defend against the IA reports. Is it just a case of waiting long enough for people to have forgotten before issuing a slap on the wrist or is the Chief waiting for the DA/FBI to complete their investigations before announcing the officers punishment. The waiting does seem contrary to the Mayor’s goal of expediency.

  • VaHam