• Utah Nurse Arrested for Refusing to Draw Blood Without Warrent
    141 replies, posted
By 'recent' you mean [U]June 23, 2016[/U]. (with another related 'stumbling block' as far back as 2013) [url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf]It has been over a year. That is a horrible excuse.[/url]
The real question is, why would he want a blood test of a crash victim? Like, The drunk driver had already *died*. What information could the officer possibly even use?
I suppose to see if the victim was also drunk - to determine whether the drunk driver who died was the only one at fault here?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52643223]I suppose to see if the victim was also drunk - to determine whether the drunk driver who died was the only one at fault here?[/QUOTE] I mean, [I]maybe[/I]? But it seems like the kind of thing that'd pretty clear at the road, I dunno. They had cruiser dashcam footage of the crash and all. Also there's this bit. [quote]A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient [A.K.A the trucker] and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported.[B] The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. [/B][/quote] I don't understand this at all? Who/what would it protect him from? Certainly not criminal liability, since they'd be finding evidence that he was driving under the influence. Civilly? "I was crashed into by an escaping suspect" is a whole lot more defensible than "I was high on smack and got drove into" to a judge presiding over a suit from a bereft family member. Bonus tidbit RE: laws. Not only was implied consent changed as recently as Code3Response implied (heh), in Utah (the state where this happened), implied consent was, for a decade, only for the reasonable belief that the person in question was violating DUI laws, In contradiction to the intent. Seems like a pretty sloppy mistake for two well-seasoned officers.
The goal being to protect the officers is obviously bullshit. It's purely to protect the department. Various forces have been successfully sued for engaging in a reckless chase that lead to deaths/injuries in the past. If they had evidence of him being on something, they could shield themselves from potential payout by blaming him for driving under the influence. Them having his blood does nothing to benefit him. It only helps the department.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52642826]Wait hold the fuck up. Code3response is an actual police officer lol?. [/QUOTE] If i remember right hes a junior cop or trainee or mall cop or somethin. I dont think he even gets to carry a gun.
[QUOTE=Birdman101;52643530]If i remember right hes a junior cop or trainee or mall cop or somethin. I dont think he even gets to carry a gun.[/QUOTE] That's not true at all on all accounts, cowboy. But like I said, which everyone seems to ignore, that I'm not defending him. [editline]3rd September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52643273]I mean, [I]maybe[/I]? But it seems like the kind of thing that'd pretty clear at the road, I dunno. They had cruiser dashcam footage of the crash and all. Also there's this bit. I don't understand this at all? Who/what would it protect him from? Certainly not criminal liability, since they'd be finding evidence that he was driving under the influence. Civilly? "I was crashed into by an escaping suspect" is a whole lot more defensible than "I was high on smack and got drove into" to a judge presiding over a suit from a bereft family member.[/QUOTE] Since he's a CDL holder it very well could help him, his company, and insurance. However it's not like getting a warrant is some kind of hard or lengthy process. Could have had a warrant in under an hour for this. [editline]3rd September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52643195]By 'recent' you mean [U]June 23, 2016[/U]. (with another related 'stumbling block' as far back as 2013) [url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf]It has been over a year. That is a horrible excuse.[/url][/QUOTE] Ok cool for finding my sources for me? I was just giving information here, not entirely related to the situation at hand.
Hilarious that the guy on the phone said he was making a big mistake threatening the nurse, then immediately manhandles her and arrests her. Cop is a piece of shit, as well as the ones who allowed him to do it.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52643585]That's not true at all on all accounts, cowboy. But like I said, which everyone seems to ignore, that I'm not defending him. [editline]3rd September 2017[/editline] Since he's a CDL holder it very well could help him, his company, and insurance. However it's not like getting a warrant is some kind of hard or lengthy process. Could have had a warrant in under an hour for this. [editline]3rd September 2017[/editline] Ok cool for finding my sources for me? I was just giving information here, not entirely related to the situation at hand.[/QUOTE] Well since you are a cop can you please take the day off and learn about the laws you are supposed to be enforcing so you dont end up like the cop in the article? Or better yet just quit since you dont seem interested at all in understanding why you are wrong. Its amazing how you are still defending your previous stance after being proven wrong multiple times. You are on the internet. Use google for gods sake instead of saying blantantly wrong infomation. Your mentality seem pretty sinilar to the cop that arrested the nurse.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52643801]Well since you are a cop can you please take the day off and learn about the laws you are supposed to be enforcing so you dont end up like the cop in the article? Or better yet just quit since you dont seem interested at all in understanding why you are wrong. Its amazing how you are still defending your previous stance after being proven wrong multiple times. You are on the internet. Use google for gods sake instead of saying blantantly wrong infomation. Your mentality seem pretty sinilar to the cop that arrested the nurse.[/QUOTE] What am I wrong about here? That warrantless blood draws were a thing until recently? That this is situation is a fourth amendment issue? That getting a warrant for what they needed would take little too no effort? That the nurse is right? Or are you talking about the HIPAA shit? Because that falls under the DOJ, not local.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52644108]What am I wrong about here? That warrantless blood draws were a thing until recently? That this is situation is a fourth amendment issue? That getting a warrant for what they needed would take little too no effort? That the nurse is right? [B]Or are you talking about the HIPAA shit? Because that falls under the DOJ, not local.[/B][/QUOTE] Ah, yes, you're right, our mistake, we totally forgot that local police are completely allowed to force people to violate federal law. Good ol' Erie doctrine. I think that's how that works, anyway, I got a B- in that class.
I'm very confused. Code3 is saying that he's not defending the cop and that the cop could've just gotten a warrant easily and everyone else is saying that he's saying the opposite and I don't understand why the replies don't seem to even have anything to do with each other this is at least the third time I've seen this happen in SH
How to easily clarify your confusion: Code3 is defending the cop.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52644301]How to easily clarify your confusion: Code3 is defending the cop.[/QUOTE] When? Pretty much the only thing i see him disagree with is what laws put the nurse in the right. He still says the nurse is right and the cop is wrong in nearly every post so far. I don't get how people are getting "The cop is right" from posts that say "the cop is wrong"
[quote]When?[/quote] [quote=Code3Response]What am I wrong about here? That warrantless blood draws were a thing until recently?[/quote] It wasn't a 'recent' thing. Stating it was 'recent' is a way to gloss over that it's been on the books for well over a year now and that there's no excuse for the officer/detective in question to have not already heard about that. It's new (it meaning a specific law that [I]at the state level[/I] goes after this particular abuse of power) to the state - but at the federal level his action was already illegal. He's basically stating 'well, it was an easy mistake to make'. But it wasn't; there was a proper way to do what the officer wanted and a fast way - he decided to be lazy and try to skirt the laws so he should be called out on that. All it would've taken the officer is time - and his 'suspect' wasn't going anywhere any time soon.
Where's the part where he defends him, tho. You can give/explore context and reasoning without believing that the person is in the right in any way.
[quote]Where's the part where he defends him, tho[/quote] [quote=Code3Response]Warrantless blood draws were commonplace under implied consent laws until recent case law moved it to a warrant standard.[/quote] [quote=Code3Response]Warrantless blood draws were a thing for a long time under the implied consent law(s) up until very recently.[/quote] [quote=Code3Response]What am I wrong about here? That warrantless blood draws were a thing until recently?[/quote]
[QUOTE=Luni;52641710]And then the chorus of pro-cop zombies says "BUT YOU SHOULDN'T'VE RESISTED" as if that somehow justifies police brutality lol[/QUOTE] And the ones that call you "edgy" if you dare suggest that the police have too much power
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52644355] Warrantless blood draws were commonplace under implied consent laws until recent case law moved it to a warrant standard. Warrantless blood draws were a thing for a long time under the implied consent law(s) up until very recently. What am I wrong about here? That warrantless blood draws were a thing until recently?[/QUOTE] Nothing here says or even implies "The officer is right in what he was doing". He's saying it wasn't the HIPAA the officer was violating, that's it. He's not saying the officer did nothing wrong, he's not saying it was a mistake, he's saying "it's not THIS wrong thing he did, it's THIS wrong thing"
[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;52645289]Nothing here says or even implies "The officer is right in what he was doing". He's saying it wasn't the HIPAA the officer was violating, that's it. He's not saying the officer did nothing wrong, he's not saying it was a mistake, he's saying "it's not THIS wrong thing he did, it's THIS wrong thing"[/QUOTE] The nurse was being forced to violate HIPAA. The cop, by forcing the nurse to do so, becomes complicit in that act. So yes, the officer violated HIPAA by proxy. That is not the [i]only[/i] law she was being forced to violate, or the [i]only[/i] law that the cop violated, but it is one of several. It has little to do with "the DOJ" as he strangely implies. Very simple reason for that: the Department of Health and Human Services investigates HIPAA violations. It only refers criminal cases to the DOJ for prosecution (since it is not authorized to impose criminal charges), which is done very rarely and resulted in a tiny handful of prosecutions. But that said, that still doesn't explain why he tosses the DOJ's name into this hodgepodge of an argument as some kind of excuse as to why HIPAA wasn't violated, and why that somehow absolves "local cops" in some form. In fact, in my opinion, depending on the applicability of the scope-of-authority exception to qualified immunity in Utah (there's a fresh circuit split on this, I forgot which though), this could have quite likely resulted in a criminal referral. This is knowing disclosure. In any case, as a law enforcement officer, he doesn't seem to know a lot about the law that he so happily wishes to instruct us about.
He's still not defending the cop. People should stop strawmanning so often, I see it a lot in SH and it really ruins any proper debate. Case in point; [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52644301]How to easily clarify your confusion: Code3 is defending the cop.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Snowmew;52644119]Ah, yes, you're right, our mistake, [b]we totally forgot that local police are completely allowed to force people to violate federal law.[/b] Good ol' Erie doctrine. I think that's how that works, anyway, I got a B- in that class.[/QUOTE]
Surely the police guy trained in drawing blood from people would be up to date with his laws and regulations on the matter? Seems strange he wouldn't be familiar with a supreme court mandated policy/change.
[url]https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1283530118423671&id=981095758667110[/url] Huh... Who would have thought. Stranger than fiction sometimes.
[QUOTE=thedeadlydodo;52646257]Surely the police guy trained in drawing blood from people would be up to date with his laws and regulations on the matter? Seems strange he wouldn't be familiar with a supreme court mandated policy/change.[/QUOTE] Only if you're not code3response who believes that well over a year for a cop to be retrained on the ramifications of federal law is not enough time for this to have been anything more than 'a simple mistake'. [quote]He's still not defending the cop.[/quote] Defending it as if it was 'a recent change' as an excuse to gloss over the officer in question's actions is a defense of the cop. Ignoring the several laws on the books that make this act illegal is also glossing things over and is a defense of the cop.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52646465]Only if you're not code3response who believes that well over a year for a cop to be retrained on the ramifications of federal law is not enough time for this to have been anything more than 'a simple mistake'. Defending it as if it was 'a recent change' as an excuse to gloss over the officer in question's actions is a defense of the cop. Ignoring the several laws on the books that make this act illegal is also glossing things over and is a defense of the cop.[/QUOTE] He stated that he was not defending the cop. Therefore, he is [B]not defending the cop[/B]. He merely tried to explain why the cop did what he did. He explicitly said that he was not defending the cop, what more do you want to hear? [QUOTE=Code3Response;52643585]That's not true at all on all accounts, cowboy. But like I said, which everyone seems to ignore, that [B]I'm not defending him[/B].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52646465]Defending it as if it was 'a recent change' as an excuse to gloss over the officer in question's actions is a defense of the cop. Ignoring the several laws on the books that make this act illegal is also glossing things over and is a defense of the cop.[/QUOTE] You're attacking him over semantics here, dude.
[quote]He explicitly said that he was not defending the cop, what more do you want to hear?[/quote] For him to retract the statement that it was a recent change - or that it was only that singular thing which got the cop in trouble here. Anyone can say they're not defending something and continue to defend it. I'm not defending that Arpaio created literal concentration camps for anyone he deemed 'too not white-skinned'; I'm just saying we've built concentration camps before for the Japanese - for good reason. I'm just adding historical pretext. Don't ignore that I'm not defending Arpaio though. Because, you know, I wrote the words 'not defending Arpaio'.
[QUOTE=Natrox;52646536]He stated that he was not defending the cop. Therefore, he is [B]not defending the cop[/B]. He merely tried to explain why the cop did what he did. He explicitly said that he was not defending the cop, what more do you want to hear?[/QUOTE] I can't really say I follow the logic here. Simply declaring something 'not a defense' inherently makes it not a defense in all cases?
[QUOTE=MedicWine;52646650]I can't really say I follow the logic here. Simply declaring something 'not a defense' inherently makes it not a defense in all cases?[/QUOTE] Yeah, pretty much. He's saying the cop is still a shitbag. An explanation of one's actions doesn't have to be a defense.
[quote]Simply declaring something 'not a defense' inherently makes it not a defense in all cases?[/quote] [quote]Yeah, pretty much.[/quote] Good to know. I'll add that to my debate repertoire - surely this will increase the level of debate when I start saying things like 'Well, I'm not defending Hitler, but he was a pretty cool guy and people overinflate just how much evil he unleashed on the world'. [quote]An explanation of one's actions doesn't have to be a defense.[/quote] When that explanation doesn't pass muster with reality, it's not an explanation*- it's an excuse. The difference being: An excuse is used to deny accountability for a person's actions. An explanation adds context and information to an event. If you say a person shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, you [I]are[/I] defending them; you're not explaining their actions, you're stating that they shouldn't be held responsible for them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.