[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles

Title: Nurse: “Scared to death … really betrayed” by arrest
Source: HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09 ... -death-really-betrayed-arrest/
Published: Sep 4, 2017
Author: Ed Morrissey
Post Date: 2017-09-04 14:33:27 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 9209
Comments: 69

“Any nurse I think would have done exactly what I did,” Alex Wubbels told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on New Day this morning. Wubbels got arrested by a Salt Lake City police officer for refusing to withdraw blood from a patient without a search warrant at the end of July. The video of the arrest went viral after Wubbels released it late last week, as John noted on Friday, and Salt Lake City has been dealing with the fallout ever since.

Wubbels tells Camerota that she feels “really betrayed,” and not just by the SLCPD either:


Poster Comment:

This story has taken on a real life of its own, in Utah and well beyond. The video shows the campus cops just standing there and doing nothing to protect her as she was hauled out of her workplace unlawfully.

There's some real anger out there if the SLC Mormons are pranking their 911 over it in protest.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

There's some real anger out there if the SLC Mormons are pranking their 911 over it in protest.

Nobody "gets it." The cops were afraid for their own lives performing a mission to serve and protect the publick. Those GOD-DAMNED MORMONS should be blown off the map for their own over 100 year old antics of spreading the devil throughout the land and sanctioning multiple wives with sexually starved and depraved men in the Old West. Jail 'em!

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-04   14:53:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: buckeroo (#1)

The cops were afraid for their own lives performing a mission to serve and protect the publick.

You've been hanging out with that smelly White kid again, haven't you?

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   15:07:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Someone told me Michael Savage said he personally wanted to slit the cops throat or kill him somehow. I didn't hear it personally.

The cop should be charged and imprisoned. Minimum 10 years.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-04   15:12:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#2) (Edited)

Those GOD-DAMNED MORMONS were the precursor to today's SCIENTOLOGISTS. JAIL 'em all, HANG 'em ALL HIGH, from the top of the tree branches, I say!

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-04   15:16:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#0)

This story has taken on a real life of its own, in Utah and well beyond. The video shows the campus cops just standing there and doing nothing to protect her as she was hauled out of her workplace unlawfully.

I thought about that, but what should they have done? Drawn their weapons and ordered and armed cop to stand down, and arrested him? That would have escalated the situation, and possibly resulted in weapons being fired.

There's no doubt they were taken by complete surprise by the arrest, and have had zero preparation of how to respond when an armed cop conducts a false arrest. Hindsight is one thing, but thinking fast in a surprising situation is quite another.

I'm sure they are giving plenty of thought to how they should have responded, if different from doing nothing. While it's possible they should have done something, I can't fault them for doing nothing.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-04   15:26:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: buckeroo (#4)

Those GOD-DAMNED MORMONS were the precursor to today's SCIENTOLOGISTS.

Obviously, in your mind. But it isn't true.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   15:27:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#0)

NBC correctly points out that the Supreme Court ruled last year that blood cannot be taken without a warrant or patient consent.

Fine. And the possession of a State of Utah driver's license gives implied consent to a blood draw.

The nurse was wrong. The cop was right. But the presence of the body cam video in this instance is thwarting the application of the rule of law. Instead, the rantings and wailings of the nurse is swaying public opinion.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   15:28:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#3)

The cop should be charged and imprisoned. Minimum 10 years.

They'll be lucky if they can get him fired and keep him fired. I'm laughing that he opened his mouth about dumping transients on the University hospital and now he'll probably get fired as an EMT too.

I admit that I am surprised that the SLC Mormons are so up in arms about it. Normally, they're as quiet and orderly as a pack of Canadians. This really touched a nerve apparently. But then, she was a two-time Olympian and a woman being roughly manhandled by a man twisting her arm behind her back as he shoved her out of the hospital like some criminal.

She shouldn't have renounced that lawsuit so quickly. Sounds like the public from which a jury would be drawn would be eager to impose punitive damages on SLC.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   15:32:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#7)

Fine. And the possession of a State of Utah driver's license gives implied consent to a blood draw.

Just because the law hasn't been challenged and struck down does not mean it is in force, even if it is still on the books officially.

The nurse was wrong. The cop was right.

The nurse was 100% right, legally and ethically. The cop was 100% wrong, legally and ethically. And he was an asshole besides and manhandled a nurse doing her job.

But the presence of the body cam video in this instance is thwarting the application of the rule of law.

No, it will hang him and he will soon be an ex-cop and an ex-EMT.

Instead, the rantings and wailings of the nurse is swaying public opinion.

The nurse was right. She was the one who was wronged here. Naturally, she is a sympathetic figure to the public. People look at her and see Everynurse, the nurses in charge at every hospital in America.

We haven't even had a thread yet about just how pissed off all the nurses' unions are about this. And they are hopping mad. They do know how to make themselves heard too.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   15:36:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Tooconservative (#8)

But then, she was a two-time Olympian and a woman being roughly manhandled by a man twisting her arm behind her back as he shoved her out of the hospital like some criminal.

Better yet, it was a video of a two-time Olympian/woman/nurse being roughly manhandled by a man twisting her arm behind her back as he shoved her screaming "help me" out of the hospital like some criminal.

Now, put that video on YouTube, lie about the legality of the blood draw, interview linguini- spined police officials who value their personal pension over the reputation of their subordinates, and we end up with the rule of man instead of the rule of law.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   15:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#6)

Obviously, in your mind. But it isn't true.

I'm telling you that L.Ron Hubbard is the re-incarnation of Joseph Smith! When will you people wake up?

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-04   15:42:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Tooconservative (#8)

There is another report out that the police department of the victim officer thanked the nurse for sticking up for the injured officer.

Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-04   15:51:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: buckeroo (#11)

I'm telling you that L.Ron Hubbard is the re-incarnation of Joseph Smith! When will you people wake up?

You need to make it your mission in life to inform everyone of the Smith/Hubbard reincarnation threat.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   15:52:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: A K A Stone (#12)

There is another report out that the police department of the victim officer thanked the nurse for sticking up for the injured officer.

Their statement is the second-to-last gray quote in the article above. Yes, they thanked her very nicely.

Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?

He has to try to cling to any shred of legality to make his argument, such as it is.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   15:53:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative (#9)

Just because the law hasn't been challenged and struck down does not mean it is in force, even if it is still on the books officially.

I see. Did you tell the cop that? Did he know that new rules were in effect? Was he aware that laws on the books mean nothing, and that those laws are subject to the whims of the YouTube audience?

Perhaps the cop should do a YouTube poll before he attempts to enforce any law. You never know.

"The nurse was 100% right, legally and ethically."

Nope. She was wrong to interfere with a law enforcement officer acting under State of Utah law. She was not only ignorant of the law, but she was ignorant of the fact that blood on HER patient had already been drawn. Some nurse. That would have ended the conflict right there.

"Naturally, she is a sympathetic figure to the public."

Obviously not to me. So you're saying the law shouldn't apply to sympathetic figures? Lady Justice should lift the blindfold and peek to see if the person is a sympathetic figure?

Hey, those 800,000 DACA kids look like sympathetic figures, too. Let's just go ahead and make them U.S. citizens. F**k the law. OK with you?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   15:56:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone (#12)

Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?

Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   15:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#15)

I see. Did you tell the cop that? Did he know that new rules were in effect? Was he aware that laws on the books mean nothing, and that those laws are subject to the whims of the YouTube audience?

The Supremes ruled on this last year. It is his responsibility to know; it is his police department's responsibility to ensure that he knows the law.

She was wrong to interfere with a law enforcement officer acting under State of Utah law.

He was acting unlawfully. You can go argue about that with the USSC if you like. Until they change their minds, he was acting unlawfully under color of authority. And you can't explain that away.

Obviously not to me. So you're saying the law shouldn't apply to sympathetic figures? Lady Justice should lift the blindfold and peek to see if the person is a sympathetic figure? Hey, those 800,000 DACA kids look like sympathetic figures, too. Let's just go ahead and make them U.S. citizens. F**k the law. OK with you?

Now you're just sounding kind of desperate, like someone who already knows they're in the wrong but won't admit it. So you try to inject other issues into what is a straightforward case of police abuse of a nurse who obeyed the law and protected her patient.

Have you noticed that no one single official in Utah is backing the bad cop? Not the mayor, not the chief of police, not the highway patrol, no state legislators, no assorted congeries of deputies' and sheriffs' and police organizations, none. Not even one.

In fact, you are the only person in America trying to defend this idiot cop.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   16:04:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Tooconservative (#14)

He has to try to cling to any shred of legality to make his argument, such as it is.

Not "to make his argument". It's instead "to defend a cop".

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-04   16:27:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: buckeroo, Tooconservative (#11) (Edited)

When will you people wake up?

When the scientologists start burning police cars, and looting Mormon Underwear shops?

And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head

Hondo68  posted on  2017-09-04   16:42:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Lock him up!

kenh  posted on  2017-09-04   16:55:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#16)

Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.

Show me the law she broke nolu chan style.

You are just getting emotional about it and saying what your opinion is and representing it as the law.

Your comment is revealing in that you think whatever a police officer says you have to obey even if it is contrary to law.

Also you lied about her obstrucinng him. Where did that happen.

If we follow your thinking you would say if she didn't suck his dick she would be obstructing him. I say that because both his command and my pretend command are not lawful commands.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-04   17:01:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan, misterwhite, hondo68, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#18)

Not "to make his argument". It's instead "to defend a cop".

You're right.

Maybe we should look at Utah's statutes. These are the 2016 statutes and I found a notation that they were "Superseded 5/9/2017". However, the incident with the Rotten Cop occured at the end of July, after the change in the law. I'm not sure exactly how it was superceded, either by a court challenge to the law after last year's USSC decision on implied consent laws or by the legislature itself. I'm just not the online sleuth that nolu is...

41-6a-520(1)(a)

(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, 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).
(c)
(i) The peace officer determines which of the tests are administered and how many of them are administered.
(ii) If a peace officer requests more than one test, refusal by a person to take one or more requested tests, even though the person does submit to any other requested test or tests, is a refusal under this section.
(d)
(i) A person who has been requested under this section to submit to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, or urine, or oral fluids may not select the test or tests to be administered.
(ii) The failure or inability of a peace officer to arrange for any specific chemical test is not a defense to taking a test requested by a peace officer, and it is not a defense in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding resulting from a person's refusal to submit to the requested test or tests.
(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.
(c) A citation issued by a peace officer may, if provided in a manner specified by the Driver License Division, also serve as the temporary license certificate.
(d) As a matter of procedure, the peace officer shall submit a signed report, within 10 calendar days after the day on which notice is provided under Subsection (2)(b), that:
(i) the peace officer had grounds to believe the arrested person was in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii); and
(ii) the person had refused to submit to a chemical test or tests under Subsection (1).
(3) Upon the request of the person who was tested, the results of the test or tests shall be made available to the person.
(4)
(a) The person to be tested may, at the person's own expense, have a physician of the person's own choice administer a chemical test in addition to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(b) The failure or inability to obtain the additional test does not affect admissibility of the results of the test or tests taken at the direction of a peace officer, or preclude or delay the test or tests to be taken at the direction of a peace officer.
(c) The additional test shall be subsequent to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(5) For the purpose of determining whether to submit to a chemical test or tests, the person to be tested does not have the right to consult an attorney or have an attorney, physician, or other person present as a condition for the taking of any test.

Perhaps misterwhite can explain to us how this Rotten Cop, having had no part in the accident scene and just showing up at the hospital, had any reasonable cause to suspect impaired driving by the victim.

Then he can explain how the Rotten Cop informed the (unconscious) victim that he had a right to refuse blood and breath tests and then read him the legally required state form to tell him he could refuse the tests and what the consequences would be.

According to a Utah law firm that defends DUI cases: "If a law enforcement officer arrests a driver for a Utah DUI he has to read the driver the Utah Implied Consent Admonitions form before conducting the chemical test. The admonition form explains to the driver the consequences of taking a chemical test and of not submitting to the chemical test."

But the Rotten Cop had no grounds whatsoever to believe this driver was impaired while driving. And he did not inform the patient he could refuse to allow a blood test as required by Utah law.

Even prior to the USSC's decision striking down the sanctions on refusal of blood tests in many states, the Rotten Cop had no defense for what he did under Utah law, a serious matter for someone who had been given the rights (and responsibilities) of a detective, i.e. this was no rookie and he was fully responsible to know the law and its proper applications.

No probable cause at all, no reason to believe the victim was impaired in any way. No consent for a blood test from the (unconscious) patient as required by law, no legal warnings of the consequences of refusing the (implied consent) blood test.

The Rotten Cop is screwed. I wouldn't be surprised if he serves six months in prison for this, even in cop-happy America.

misterwhite seems to think that "implied consent" means that any cop can sneak up on any driver of a motor vehicle and just take their blood for any reason at any time. That is not true in any American jurisdiction.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   17:18:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite, kenh (#16)

Almost forgot the required graphic...

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   17:22:42 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Tooconservative (#17)

The Supremes ruled on this last year.

Yeah. They said you need consent. Getting a driver's license in the State of Utah gives law enforcement implied consent to draw blood.

"He was acting unlawfully."

Nope. Do I need to cite the State of Utah statute again?

Have you noticed that no one single official in Utah is backing the bad cop?

Yep. Pisses me off. Because the cop was right. The officials are pussies, not wanting to rock the PC boat.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   18:12:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#21)

Show me the law she broke nolu chan style.

Index Utah Code
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 8 Offenses Against the Administration of Government
Part 3 Obstructing Governmental Operations
Section 306 Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.

76-8-306. Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.
(1) An actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constitutes a criminal offense:

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   18:31:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)

Why are your citing old statutes which have been superceded? Bullshit argument which I am happy to ignore. I posted the current statute, again, below. Read it and stop wasting my time.

"Perhaps misterwhite can explain to us how this Rotten Cop, having had no part in the accident scene and just showing up at the hospital, had any reasonable cause to suspect impaired driving by the victim."

He was the trained police phlebologist ordered to collect a blood sample by his supervisor.

"Even prior to the USSC's decision striking down the sanctions on refusal of blood tests in many states, the Rotten Cop had no defense for what he did under Utah law"

The statute you conveniently ignore, than ignorantly ask a question about:

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:

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   18:41:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#24)

Nope. Do I need to cite the State of Utah statute again?

You did not cite the statute. I posted it above. You simply don't understand the statute's rather plain language.

"Implied consent" is not a prior consent to any taking of blood or breath samples at all, even in cases where they have already arrested someone for DUI. Stop pretending it is. The statute explicitly rules out taking samples without consent.

That was never the law in Utah or in any other state. It isn't my fault that you don't understand this.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   18:44:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#26)

Effective 5/9/2017
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.

Give your source. I haven't been able to find one that explicitly states it was updated on 5/9/2017 which is what you are trying to claim here.

Also, the opening sentence of the statute you are quoting has had that same exact wording for years, at least since 2010 that I can see, via the 2010 Utah statutes at Justia.com.

Further, you always ignore section b) which follows directly your section a).

(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).

The officer must have reasonable cause to suspect that the suspect was driving while impaired. Yet the Rotten Cop was not even at the crime scene. And he couldn't have smelled alcohol on him because most of his body had been on fire until the Utah highway patrol put out the flames.

So where is the reasonable cause that Rotten Cop was required to have before demanding any sort of medical test?

And it only gets worse for you. As we look through the statute, we find repeatedly that the officer must obtain consent, without exception. Rotten Cop did not have that consent because the patient was unconscious.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   18:55:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Tooconservative (#28)

So where is the reasonable cause that Rotten Cop was required to have before demanding any sort of medical test?

He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   19:11:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#26)

I did another search for recent bills in the Utah legislature and came up with the following:

IndexUtah Code
Title 41Motor Vehicles
Chapter 6aTraffic Code
Part 5Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving
Section 520Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
(Effective 5/9/2017)


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).
(c)
(i) The peace officer determines which of the tests are administered and how many of them are administered.
(ii) If a peace officer requests more than one test, refusal by a person to take one or more requested tests, even though the person does submit to any other requested test or tests, is a refusal under this section.
(d)
(i) A person who has been requested under this section to submit to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, or urine, or oral fluids may not select the test or tests to be administered.
(ii) The failure or inability of a peace officer to arrange for any specific chemical test is not a defense to taking a test requested by a peace officer, and it is not a defense in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding resulting from a person's refusal to submit to the requested test or tests.
(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.
(c) A citation issued by a peace officer may, if provided in a manner specified by the Driver License Division, also serve as the temporary license certificate.
(d) As a matter of procedure, the peace officer shall submit a signed report, within 10 calendar days after the day on which notice is provided under Subsection (2)(b), that:
(i) the peace officer had grounds to believe the arrested person was in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii); and
(ii) the person had refused to submit to a chemical test or tests under Subsection (1).
(3) Upon the request of the person who was tested, the results of the test or tests shall be made available to the person.
(4)
(a) The person to be tested may, at the person's own expense, have a physician of the person's own choice administer a chemical test in addition to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(b) The failure or inability to obtain the additional test does not affect admissibility of the results of the test or tests taken at the direction of a peace officer, or preclude or delay the test or tests to be taken at the direction of a peace officer.
(c) The additional test shall be subsequent to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(5) For the purpose of determining whether to submit to a chemical test or tests, the person to be tested does not have the right to consult an attorney or have an attorney, physician, or other person present as a condition for the taking of any test.


Amended by Chapter 181, 2017 General Session

That is a lot of goddamned HTML formatting to get from the retarded Utah legislative site to get it posted here at LF, even if both are grossly outdated table-based layouts. At any rate, it is now readable here at LF.]

Anyway, we find that Section 1a and 1b are still the same as they have been for decades. The officer must have reasonable cause to believe that a driver has blood levels of alcohol or drugs in violation of Utah law.

Rotten Cop had no such reasonable cause to believe this about another officer (the accident victim) and was not even present at the accident scene.

Nor was there any changes in section 2a: "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".

Rotten Cop did not "request a test". The patient was unconscious at the time.

Rotten Cop did not "warn a person" about refusal. Again, the patient was unconscious.

Utah state law has no provision for LEO to obtain any blood sample under the implied consent law whatsoever. For any other purpose, such as involuntary blood tests in other types of cases, they must get a warrant from a judge.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   19:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#29) (Edited)

He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.

So he says.

Where are the radio recordings to back up his story?

Why would he, a SLC Unified PD detective, be doing this job when it was entirely a Utah state patrol accident?

Again, he did not have reasonable cause.

Again, he did not request a blood test from the (unconscious) driver.

Again, he did not warn the (unconscious) suspect that he could lose his license for refusing to submit to a blood test.

There is nothing in the law to support what Rotten Cop did.

You may as well admit it. You're just making yourself look like a total scumbag.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   19:35:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#29)

BTW, I did find where Utah did the changes in July 2017. It had to do with conditional licenses and operating a boat drunk in a law that sunsetted in 2015 and they just finally updated the implied consent statute to harmonize these changes.

Utah: HB0193, 41-6a-520 changes for 2017

This HB0193 was a big housekeeping bill to update a lot of statutes, 41-6a-520 among them.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   19:46:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Tooconservative (#31)

There is nothing in the law to support what Rotten Cop did.

Then why is the department changing their policy on blood draws? I mean, if Mr. Rotten Cop was being a real cowboy, breaking all the rules, arresting people, demanding things he wasn't entitled to by law, why make changes to good policy?

Unless he WAS following long-standing lawful procedures and now the department is using him (and his supervisor) as scapegoats to cover their asses.

But go ahead. Blame the cop. It's what you're good at.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   21:12:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Tooconservative (#30)

Rotten Cop did not "request a test". The patient was unconscious at the time.

Hence, "implied consent" in the title of the statute .

If the statute only covered drivers who were conscious and could give consent, then the statute would simply read "consent".

Obtaining a driver's license in the State of Utah means you give your consent to a blood draw whether you're conscious, unconscious, alive or dead.

And I bet the police phlebologist (Mr. Rotten Cop) could cite a dozen instances where this wasn't a problem at the hospital. Until he encountered Ms. Stupid Nurse who doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. But we haven't heard his side, have we? Just Ms. Blabbermouth Nurse.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-04   21:26:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: misterwhite (#7)

The nurse was wrong. The cop was right.

The Supreme Court is superior to all cops. The Supreme Court says that the nurse was right and the cop was wrong. Soon, the cop will be an ex-cop, and an ex-EMT, the other cop will suffer important financial consequences,

The people are angry, and the police are part of the government. The government answers to the people.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-04   22:00:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#34)

Obtaining a driver's license in the State of Utah means you give your consent to a blood draw whether you're conscious, unconscious, alive or dead.

The Constitution trumps state and local law, and the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. Utah's state law may say that you give consent, but the Supreme Court says that Utah's law is not legal, so in an instant Utah's law isn't law anymore, because superior law nullifies it.

The nurse was upholding superior law. The cop used force to enforce illegal law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. So the cop and the watch supervisor who told him to make the arrest have no excuse, and they have to burn for their crimes. Their punishment needs to be public, because the public needs to see these cops punished as an example to the rest of the cops, that they are not above the law and they need to know the law before they start pulling out handcuffs, particularly on medical personnel in hospitals.

The city police department is changing its protocol because its protocol results in unconstitutional acts.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-04   22:03:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Tooconservative (#27)

And anyway, it isn't the Utah law that governs here, it is the United States Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The cop doesn't have a pot to piss in.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-04   22:06:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: hondo68, misterwhite (#19)

When the scientologists start burning police cars, and looting Mormon Underwear shops?

The day is coming, hondo. Look how misterwhite has gone coo-coo already.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-04   22:30:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: buckeroo (#38)

Maybe misterwhir is a former cop who liked beating people.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-04   23:23:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: A K A Stone (#39)

You should not speculate on anyone as your voting history is ruined with political sabotage tarnishing your own record as a defender of the republic.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-04   23:30:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: buckeroo (#40)

Says the fool who never voted against Obama and who abandoned America and sat out voting for Trump. Tell me another fable California dick sucker.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-04   23:44:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (42 - 69) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com