Utah nurse arrested for following Constitution

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-for-doing-her-job/?utm_term=.6ccf9ae010c6

Video at link. Essentially, police wanted blood from a truck driver who was a victim of a driving accident. The truck driver ended up bloody, in emergency room, and unconscious. The other opposing driver in the accident was the one at fault and died. It is entirely possible that the at-fault driver was on drugs but that is neither here nor there. The truck driver was just a typical person: "innocent."

Remember your Bill of Rights. Police have no right to seize blood--no warrant, not even reasonable suspicion. The nurse objects to helping police because there must be one of three elements: (1) the patient must have given consent for the blood, (2) the police must have a warrant, or (3) the patient must be under arrest for a crime. The nurse showed a document that the police department agreed to in a contract stating these three elements and had her supervisor on the phone. [about 5:50 in the video]

Someone told the police officer [about 6:45] that he's "making a huge mistake threatening a nurse" and that triggered him into angry arrest mode.

While this is just an anecdote, I have to wonder if the atmosphere of the country is at play. You have laws (like the Constitution) that are barriers to him and his one-man authority, but with Trump pardoning Arpaio and other shenanigans, in the police officer's mind he may be the hero victim of the story. And there are millions of other people just like him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I doubt that Trump has anything to do with this. The policeman is not terribly up to date on current events, like the status of 'implied consent.'

The cop is just pretty deep into the 'it's us against everyone' mentality that's been growing in cops for the last 20 years. I think that's why none of the other cops stopped him, as well.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The cop is just pretty deep into the 'it's us against everyone' mentality that's been growing in cops for the last 20 years.

I can see that, but also I think Trump administration has increased those feelings. He's not like Obama, trying to sit down with Henry Louis Gates and the officer who arrested him to drink some beer... Trump is a divider not a unifier. Now whether that atmosphere had any effect at all, maybe you're right, maybe it didn't. Maybe.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why would him being under arrest forfeit his blood? Does it matter what the charge is?

 

[repoman]

I saw this on liveleak and a commenter there said the cops chased a wanted criminal who drove into the truck and died. The truck caught on fire and the trucker was burned. The cop wants any evidence that the comatose trucker was drunk or on drugs or diabetic maybe, anything to have less damages from a lawsuit brought by the trucker.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I saw this on liveleak and a commenter there said the cops chased a wanted criminal who drove into the truck and died. The truck caught on fire and the trucker was burned. The cop wants any evidence that the comatose trucker was drunk or on drugs or diabetic maybe, anything to have less damages from a lawsuit brought by the trucker.

Except it wouldn't be evidence.

 

[Treedbear]

... in the police officer's mind he may be the hero victim of the story. And there are millions of other people just like him.

Or these folks are just the victim of the sugar high induced by stoking up on twinkies and assorted sugary snacks and drinks at the local convenience store, like I saw two officers doing while waiting to pay for my gas, before getting back into their stealth police suv with the high performance tires and blackened-out police insignia. Something about seeing two heavily armed 30-somethings with an armfull of adrenalin inducers out in public sheds an eerie light on the ways relatively quiet little towns go bad.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except it wouldn't be evidence.

A lawyer would know that, but maybe they're hoping the driver wouldn't. "We recommend you don't sue the city, or we'll have to reveal you had _____ in your system while you were operating heavy machinery. Just sign this waiver, 'kay, thanx, b'bye."

 

[J842P]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-for-doing-her-job/?utm_term=.6ccf9ae010c6

Video at link. Essentially, police wanted blood from a truck driver who was a victim of a driving accident. The truck driver ended up bloody, in emergency room, and unconscious. The other opposing driver in the accident was the one at fault and died. It is entirely possible that the at-fault driver was on drugs but that is neither here nor there. The truck driver was just a typical person: "innocent."

Remember your Bill of Rights. Police have no right to seize blood--no warrant, not even reasonable suspicion. The nurse objects to helping police because there must be one of three elements: (1) the patient must have given consent for the blood, (2) the police must have a warrant, or (3) the patient must be under arrest for a crime. The nurse showed a document that the police department agreed to in a contract stating these three elements and had her supervisor on the phone. [about 5:50 in the video]

Someone told the police officer [about 6:45] that he's "making a huge mistake threatening a nurse" and that triggered him into angry arrest mode.

While this is just an anecdote, I have to wonder if the atmosphere of the country is at play. You have laws (like the Constitution) that are barriers to him and his one-man authority, but with Trump pardoning Arpaio and other shenanigans, in the police officer's mind he may be the hero victim of the story. And there are millions of other people just like him.

The police have always been, and continue to be, essentially a gang. One with the power of the state behind it, but a gang no less.

 

[Arctish]

A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.

A 19-minute video from the body camera of a fellow officer shows the bitter argument that unfolded on the floor of the hospital’s burn unit.

A group of hospital officials, security guards and nurses are seen pacing nervously in the ward. Payne can be seen standing in a doorway, arms folded over his black polo shirt, waiting as hospital officials talk on the phone. “So why don’t we just write a search warrant,” the officer wearing the body camera says to Payne.

“They don’t have PC,” Payne responds, using the abbreviation for probable cause, which police must have to get a warrant for search and seizure. He adds that he plans to arrest the nurse if she doesn’t allow him to draw blood. “I’ve never gone this far,” he says.

After several minutes, Wubbels shows Payne and the other officer a printout of the hospital’s policy on obtaining blood samples from patients. With her supervisor on speakerphone, she calmly tells them they can’t proceed unless they have a warrant or patient consent, or if the patient is under arrest.
“The patient can’t consent, he’s told me repeatedly that he doesn’t have a warrant, and the patient is not under arrest,” she says. “So I’m just trying to do what I’m supposed to do, that’s all.”

“So I take it without those in place, I’m not going to get blood,” Payne says.

Wubbels’s supervisor chimes in on the speakerphone. “Why are you blaming the messenger,” he asks Payne.

“She’s the one that has told me no,” the officer responds.

<link>

Absolutely unacceptable.

No Probable cause, therefore no warrant; no warrant, therefore arrest the nurse for refusing to be complicit in a civil rights violation? And the comatose guy wasn't even the one who caused the accident.

Sad!

 

[J842P]

A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.

A 19-minute video from the body camera of a fellow officer shows the bitter argument that unfolded on the floor of the hospital’s burn unit.

A group of hospital officials, security guards and nurses are seen pacing nervously in the ward. Payne can be seen standing in a doorway, arms folded over his black polo shirt, waiting as hospital officials talk on the phone. “So why don’t we just write a search warrant,” the officer wearing the body camera says to Payne.

“They don’t have PC,” Payne responds, using the abbreviation for probable cause, which police must have to get a warrant for search and seizure. He adds that he plans to arrest the nurse if she doesn’t allow him to draw blood. “I’ve never gone this far,” he says.

After several minutes, Wubbels shows Payne and the other officer a printout of the hospital’s policy on obtaining blood samples from patients. With her supervisor on speakerphone, she calmly tells them they can’t proceed unless they have a warrant or patient consent, or if the patient is under arrest.
“The patient can’t consent, he’s told me repeatedly that he doesn’t have a warrant, and the patient is not under arrest,” she says. “So I’m just trying to do what I’m supposed to do, that’s all.”

“So I take it without those in place, I’m not going to get blood,” Payne says.
Wubbels’s supervisor chimes in on the speakerphone. “Why are you blaming the messenger,” he asks Payne.

“She’s the one that has told me no,” the officer responds. <link>

Absolutely unacceptable.

No Probable cause, therefore no warrant. No warrant, therefore arrest the nurse for refusing to be complicit in a civil rights violation. And the comatose guy wasn't even the one who caused the accident.

Sad!

Yes. In a civilized country, this officer would be fired, and would face prosecution for false imprisonment and civil rights violations. In the US, we have the Gang of Blue, though, so I predict nothing will happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I saw this on liveleak and a commenter there said the cops chased a wanted criminal who drove into the truck and died. The truck caught on fire and the trucker was burned. The cop wants any evidence that the comatose trucker was drunk or on drugs or diabetic maybe, anything to have less damages from a lawsuit brought by the trucker.

Ah, that makes sense as to why the officer was so adamant about getting the samples.

 

[skepticalbip]

I saw this on liveleak and a commenter there said the cops chased a wanted criminal who drove into the truck and died. The truck caught on fire and the trucker was burned. The cop wants any evidence that the comatose trucker was drunk or on drugs or diabetic maybe, anything to have less damages from a lawsuit brought by the trucker.

Ah, that makes sense as to why the officer was so adamant about getting the samples.

I would say that the cop was so adamant was more likely the fact that he was following orders from his lieutenant, if the article is to be believed. If this is the case than there should be two cops in trouble; one for giving an illegal order, the other for complying with an illegal order.

From the article

A neighboring police department sent Payne, a trained police phlebotomist, to collect blood from the patient and check for illicit substances, as the Tribune reported. The goal was reportedly to protect the trucker, who was not suspected of a crime. His lieutenant ordered him to arrest Wubbels if she refused to let him draw a sample, according to the Tribune.

 

[fast]

Why do I post?

 

[ZiprHead]

Spent ten years working in a hospital lab. Taught early on that drawing blood without proper orders can get you in legal trouble, including criminal.

Patients must give prior consent. Only doctors (PAs and NPs can do too nowadays) can order blood draws. Special cases are allowed such as patients that cannot give consent as in this case. The cop needed a warrant. Nothing less.

 

[Valjean]

I've worked both sides of the aisle.
I used to be on contract with the police and sheriff's departments to draw blood for alcohol and drug testing on suspected DUI drivers, but most of these suspects had already been arrested, and I had to get consent from the patient for every draw, in any case. They had the right to refuse consent, but that carried an automatic loss of license for a year.
I'm also a hospital RN, with ER experience.

The nurse was in the right, even without the "agreement" between the hospital and police department. Her duty was to protect her patient.

The patient was, legally, a medical ward of the hospital. The nurse-patient relationship was in effect, with attached legal responsibility.

The police phlebotomist had no legal order from the hospital to draw blood, nor had he consent from the patient. All surgical procedures -- and phlebotomy is considered a surgical procedure -- require consent or, in the case of exigent circumstance, presumed consent.

Any nurse that allowed an unauthorized outside party to treat or perform surgery on her patient should have been fired on the spot, IMHO, and should have expected an investigation by the Board of nursing, with likely loss of licensure.
I'd also have liked the security personnel, who had jurisdiction within the hospital, to have arrested the police assaulting the nurse.


The police could simply have subpoena'd the lab results from the blood draw that would have been routinely been done, by the hospital, on any unconscious patient arriving in the trauma room.

 

[barbos]

I've worked both sides of the isle.
I used to be on contract with the police and sheriff's departments to draw blood for alcohol and drug testing on suspected DUI drivers, but most of these suspects had already been arrested, and I had to get consent from the patient for every draw, in any case. They had the right to refuse consent, but that carried an automatic loss of license for a year.
I'm also a hospital RN, with ER experience.

The nurse was in the right, even without the "agreement" between the hospital and police department. Her duty was to protect her patient.

The patient was, legally, a medical ward of the hospital. The nurse-patient relationship was in effect, with attached legal responsibility.
The police phlebotomist had no legal order from the hospital to draw blood, nor had he consent from the patient. All surgical procedures -- and phlebotomy is considered a surgical procedure -- require consent or, in the case of exigent circumstance, presumed consent.

Any nurse that allowed an unauthorized outside party to treat or perform surgery on her patient should have been fired on the spot, IMHO, and should have expected an investigation by the Board of nursing, with likely loss of licensure.

So if the person is unconscious it's up to hospital? Can nurse herself decide or it has to be actual doctor?

The police could simply have subpoena'd the lab results from the blood draw that would have been routinely been done, by the hospital, on an unconscious patient arriving in the trauma room.

In this particular case would hospital do the testing for themselves?

 

[Valjean]

Presumed consent to treat attaches to unconscious or incompetent patients arriving in hospital. An alert, oriented and competent person has the right to refuse treatment.

I was also an Emergency Medical Technician before I got my nursing degree. Even in the field, an alert and competent person had the right to refuse treatment.

In this particular case would hospital do the testing for themselves?

We routinely draw a "rainbow" on arriving trauma patients, (different tests require different types of blood tubes, with different colored tops, hence, "rainbow") These go to the lab immediately, with whatever tests the Dr has ordered. If more tests are ordered later, the lab has the blood on hand for testing.
In auto accidents, alcohol and common drug tests are usually ordered. The police are free to subpoena results, or subpoena additional tests.

 

[ZiprHead]

CNN is reporting this morning that the prosecutor's office is considering criminal charges on the cop.

 

[Bronzeage]

So if the person is unconscious it's up to hospital? Can nurse herself decide or it has to be actual doctor?

The police could simply have subpoena'd the lab results from the blood draw that would have been routinely been done, by the hospital, on an unconscious patient arriving in the trauma room.

In this particular case would hospital do the testing for themselves?

Only a Doctor has the authority to order medical procedures or tests. An attending physician will order a blood test for an unconscious person when it's important information.

It's a different matter when a policeman wants a medical professional to collect evidence through an invasive search, without a warrant. That is the real question here.