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: 11400
Comments: 69
Wubbels tells Camerota that she feels “really betrayed,” and not just by the SLCPD either: — CNN (@CNN) September 4, 2017 “I was scared to death,” she said. “I was obviously very frightened … I really feel betrayed.” She said she feels betrayed by the police officers and by the university police and security. Wubbels alerted the university PD when Detective Jeff Payne first got there, feeling he was out of control and a potential problem. They ended up doing nothing, and so Payne told Wubbels that he was going to leave the hospital “with blood vials or a body in tow.” Wubbels stood her ground, and Payne arrested her, pushing her violently out the door in full view of hospital staff … and security cameras, not to mention his own body camera. Wubbels tells NBC that the police need to police themselves if they want to rebuild trust with the Salt Lake community — and the same goes for the university PD, too: That’s not an overstatement. The incident touched off anger in the Salt Lake Valley that may still be crescendoing. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that residents in the city have been flooding 911 with protest calls — some of which purport to call in an assault at the hospital, and then describe Wubbels’ arrest by Payne. The SLCPD had to put out a public request giving out a special number for protest calls in order to keep 911 resources from being overwhelmed. The protest even spread to other communities, prompting other police agencies to distance themselves from Payne while praising Wubbels: Meanwhile, a criminal probe has been opened into Payne’s conduct: Payne may be risking more than one job. He also moonlights as an EMT, and remarked to other police officers that he might retaliate against University Hospital by dumping transients on them. The SLC Tribune reported that those comments certainly got the attention of his other boss: When the other officer tells Payne that the staff at the hospital probably won’t be very happy with him, Payne responds, ”I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere.” … Gold Cross President Mike Moffitt said the company was conducting an internal investigation into Payne’s conduct. The company was not aware of the incident prior to media reports Thursday, he said, adding that he was dismayed and surprised as he watched the videos. For now, Payne finds himself on administrative leave from his police job while the mayor and police chief try to make amends with the hospital and Wubbels: Earlier in the day, Brown and Biskupski called the University Hospital nurse, Alex Wubbels, to apologize. They then held a news conference, saying they were alarmed by what they saw on police body camera footage of the arrest, which took place July 26, and said changes to police blood draw policies and officer training had been made. Wubbels knew the law better than the police. NBC correctly points out that the Supreme Court ruled last year that blood cannot be taken without a warrant or patient consent. The ruling in Birchfield last year related specifically to driving under the influence. In fact, the dissents from Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Birchfield didn’t argue for warrantless blood searches, but to require warrants for breathalyzers, which the majority allowed without warrants. Justice Clarence Thomas wanted to classify blood draws and breathalyzers alike too, but to allow them under exigent circumstances when probable cause for drunk driving existed. However, the accident in this case was caused by a suspect in a police chase, and Payne had no reasonable cause to suspect the patient of being at fault in the accident, let alone being impaired before it. Oh, and as it turns out, the patient was — wait for it — a police officer who had committed no crime at all. William Gray was working his full-time job as a truck driver when a police chase resulted in a collision with Gray’s truck, but he’s also a reserve officer for the Rigby, Idaho police department. Salt Lake City PD had no reason to suspect that he committed any crime, and the Rigby PD immediately issued a public statement hailing Wubbels’ “heroic” act in protecting his rights: The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act. Payne deserves a full hearing to determine his status with law enforcement, and the full benefits of due process. Had Payne concerned himself with due process for Gray, ironically, he wouldn’t need it now. So far, Wubbels has not filed a lawsuit, but it’s a pretty good guess that SLCPD will consider Payne a liability whether she does or not. By the way, NBC also notes that Wubbels is a former Olympian: Wubbels gets a gold medal here. 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. “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. “I was scared to death… I feel betrayed,” says nurse arrested for refusing to allow a patient’s blood to be drawn https://t.co/PL30DzGjkR pic.twitter.com/F3AwnRfIxe Wubbels was pressed on what was going through her head when all of this was happening. Even Utah police departments that had nothing to do with the episode were feeling the wrath of Wubbels’ arrest. South Salt Lake police spokesman Gary Keller said his department mistakenly received many phone calls and ”nasty” messages about Payne on Friday. In a Facebook post, South Salt Lake police Chief Jack Carruth agreed the video had been “shocking for all of us to see” and commended Wubbels, before clarifying no South Salt Lake officers had been involved. The Unified Police Department similarly pointed people in Salt Lake City‘s direction, adding ”we are two completely different police departments.” After meeting with the Salt Lake County district attorney, Salt Lake City officials said Unified would conduct a criminal probe into the episode. An internal affairs unit investigation into Payne’s actions is underway, as is one by the Police Civilian Review Board, Mayor Jackie Biskupski said Friday. Detective Jeff Payne told another officer that he works a second job as a paramedic with Gold Cross Ambulance and brings patients to University Hospital, body camera footage obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune shows. City officials said late Friday the Unified Police Department would conduct the criminal probe. Meanwhile, an internal affairs investigation by Salt Lake City police into the officer, Detective Jeff Payne, also is ongoing. Payne was placed on administrative leave Friday afternoon, as was a second unnamed officer connected to the confrontation. On July 26th of this year, one of our reserve officers, William Gray was the victim in a horrific accident in northern Utah while working his full-time job as a truck driver. The suspect in this incident was fleeing from Utah State Highway Patrol, when he crossed into oncoming traffic and collided head on with Gray’s truck, severely injuring Gray, and killing himself. Officer Gray was flown to the University of Utah’s burn unit where he remains under their watchful, professional, and competent care. … Wubbels is a former Olympic athlete who competed as an Alpine skier in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympics. She has worked at the hospital since 2009.
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-28) not displayed.
.
.
.
#29. To: Tooconservative (#28)
He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.
I did another search for recent bills in the Utah legislature and came up with the following: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The day is coming, hondo. Look how misterwhite has gone coo-coo already.
Maybe misterwhir is a former cop who liked beating people.
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.
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.
I voted for my dead dawg, Scruffy. A champion of the republic, far greater than any living, mortal politician that you or anyone in the GOP/DEM Party voted for.
Because they never dreamed that one of their cops would do something that stupid?
I understand that that is what you think it means. But it doesn't.
He will likely lose his job as an EMT too. The ambulance company he works for cannot afford the bad blood with the local hospitals. They have him on video, threatening to dump transients on the university hospital in retaliation. Here are excerpts from his own bodycam. You'll see the nurse still being held in his cop car. I can see why the nurse is so furious with the university police. What a pair of useless tools. Their careers will take a definite hit for this.
The full body cam footage of the entire incident from some other cop's bodycam. Notice the presence of police supervisor James Tracy taking to the nurse seated in the police car. He had ordered Detective Payne to obtain the illegal sample and to arrest the nurse if she refused. Tracy is the "unnamed officer" that has been suspended along with Payne. When you see the entire video, it actually makes you even angrier. A bit more from SLC Tribune: Payne — who says he wanted the blood sample to protect the patient, not punish him — said he was advised by Lt. James Tracy, the watch commander on duty that night, to arrest Wubbels for interfering with a police investigation if she refused to let him get the sample, according to his report. The Logan PD has not given any good reason why they were trying to get a blood sample from a victim of a high-speed chase on a crowded road.
What a lame joke. Not even funny.
After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.
Utah hospital to cops: Stay away from our nurses The University of Utah Hospital, where a nurse was manhandled and arrested by police as she protected the legal rights of a patient, has imposed new restrictions on law enforcement, including barring officers from patient-care areas and from direct contact with nurses.
The nurses' union is definitely on the warpath. Good find. I think Rotten Cop will get fired, possibly get jail time. I think his supervisor will get fired as well. And I think the police chief's days are numbered.
How about the part where the university cop seems to be offering to sneak Rotten Cop up to the burn unit so he could draw the blood anyway? You can see why the university is so angry. Over the last year or so, complaints against the conduct of cops in SLC hit an all-time high. The public thinks they are very arrogant and exceed their authority regularly. I read about it in another article about SLC PD. So this incident kind brought all of that to a head.
He didn't ask her to draw the blood sample. Why is she twisting things around to make it look like she's the victim? Never mind. I just answered my own question.
Would that make a difference? If the reason is good enough, this all goes away? Suddenly law enforcement is right and the nurse is wrong and should be thrown in jail? Give me a break.
Good grief! You are still defending the POS cops? All of them? I guess I'm not really surprised though. You kick my ass in a dream you better wake up and apologize.
That's because you're only talking to yourself. It can hardly be an unfamiliar experience for you.
Mitt's LDS have joined with ANTIFA, The Oath Keepers, Kim Jong Un, BLM, the Bundy Alliance, Vlad Putin, and alt-right, in opposition to the Trump Fusion Police, Global Deep State. The Donald is much more of a Uniter, than GW Bush could ever dreamed of! Because the details do matter. Upon what reasonable cause did the Logan PD request that blood sample? Utah's laws are very strict about this. The officer must have reasonable cause. And why should a SLC Unified PD officer (Rotten Cop) be sent hours later to collect a sample for the Logan PD? Logan is a town of 50,000 and surely has its own phlebotomist/detectives. Why didn't they send their own personnel, if they actually had reasonable cause to obtain a blood sample (suspicion that the suspect had BAC of alcohol or other drugs contrary to Utah laws)? Logan PD is going to have to account for their role in this as well. Why did they ask for his blood? Did they have any reasonable cause to do so? Why would SLC Unified PD send a detective to collect it instead of Logan just sending their own personnel? Since it was UHP that chased this motorist into oncoming traffic, what role was played by UHP in all this? Why was Logan PD trying to get that blood sample and why was SLCUPD their blood collection agent?
You ask these questions as though their answers would make a difference. They won't and you know it. So why waste everyone's time? The answer could be as simple as a police department policy which states that in every vehicular accident involving a death, blood samples are taken of everyone involved. Maybe it was his turn to draw samples. Maybe he was the only one available. You're making this waaaay more complicated than it needs to be.
On this forum, no. Sometimes I have to repeat myself three or four times before it penetrates the thick skulls of some of the posters here. Like you.
It will make a difference when the police inquiries are made and when the trials begin. This will go to trial, first criminal court, then civil. That is impossible. You're just making crap up. The police cannot make up their own policy to test everyone if the law says they must have probable cause to suspect impairment. And the Logan PD and the SLCUPD did not have any such probable cause at all. They were the errand boys of the Utah highway patrol who are no doubt desperate to keep their hands clean at this point. I'm not sure that will work out for them. I expect UHP will suspend one or more supervisors very shortly and they will be included in the criminal investigation.
You pointed it out but bears repeating. The police must have grounds to believe a person is impaired in order to order a blood draw. Implied consent doesn't even come into play in this case. In my hypothetical scenario of the police setting up checkpoints every 1/2 mile on a limited access highway with 100 miles between exits to do mandatory blood draws, with drivers unable to refuse because of "implied consent", and then dying from blood loss between 50 & 80 miles, this provision prevents that. Seems that notwithstanding implied consent, police cannot demand blood from any driver they encounter. By law, it appears the cop had zero legal standing to either demand or conduct a blood draw.
Don't be confused by white's ridiculous ideas about "implied consent". The law requires a suspect to give consent to a blood test, period. It spells it out. The officer must also have grounds to believe that a DUI or other impairment charge is warranted. The only exception is when a judge signs a warrant for a blood draw. What implied consent is about is that you have no grounds to appeal the penalties (like losing your license for years) if you refuse to allow a blood test or breathalyzer. That is what implied consent really is. Now, if they have a warrant, you can refuse all you want and it will do you no good. There is a nasty little video of a woman who was afraid of needles (she said) and they got a warrant and they held her down and took the blood sample. It wasn't pretty but it was entirely legal. white wants to pretend that "implied consent" is the same thing as having a warrant for a blood draw. It's so stupid it isn't even worth debating. Using white's logic, every single driver on every road in Utah (including passengers who have car keys to the vehicle) is subject to a blood test at any time. Which is not the case. The law has always required reasonable suspicion and driver consent to the blood draw. It is when you refuse the blood test and the penalties start that implied consent comes to bear.
What implied consent is about is that you have no grounds to appeal the penalties (like losing your license for years) if you refuse to allow a blood test or breathalyzer. That is what implied consent really is. Yes, it has nothing to do with creating a state right to stick a needle into you without consent. That is still in 4th Amendment territory. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf Missouri v McNeely, S Ct 11-1425, 569 US (17 Apr 2013) Syllabus MISSOURI CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI No. 11–1425. Argued January 9, 2013—Decided April 17, 2013 Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speed- ing and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sam- ple. McNeely’s BAC tested well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He moved to suppress the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court agreed, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely’s blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where 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. This case, the state court found, involved a routine DWI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensual warrantless test violated McNeely’s right to be free from unrea- sonable searches of his person. Held: The judgment is affirmed. 358 S. W. 3d 65, affirmed. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV, concluding that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant. Pp. 4–13, 20–23. (a) The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception, see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224, applies here, where the search involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely's skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation. One recognized exception "applies when '" the exigencies of the situation" make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable.' " Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. This Court looks to the totality of circumstances in determining whether an exigency exits. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 406. Applying this approach in Schmerber, the Court found a warrantless blood test reasonable after considering all of the facts and circumstances of that case and carefully basing its holding on those specific facts, including that alcohol levels decline after drinking stops and that testing was delayed while offocers transported the injured suspect to the hospital and investigated the accident scene. Pp. 4-8. (b) The State nonetheless seeks a per se rule, contending that exigent circumstances necessarily exist when an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has been driving of alcohol because BAC evidence is inherently evanescent. Though a person's blood alcohol level declines until the alcohol is eliminated, it does not follow that the court should depart from careful case-by-case assessment of exigency. When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonable obtain a warrant before having a blood sample drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. See McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456. Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol's disspation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts, as in Schmerber, not to accept the "considerable overgeneralization" that a per se rule would reflect, Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 393. Blood testing is different in critical respects from other destruction-of-evidence cases. Unlike a situation where, e.g., a suspect has control over easily disposable evidence, see Cupp v. Murphy 412 U.S. 291, 296, BAC evidence naturally dissipates in a gradual and relatively predictable manner. Moreover, because an officer must typically take a DWI suspect to a medical facility and obtain atrained medical professional's assistance before having a blood test conducted, some delay between the time of the arrest or accident and time of the test is inevitable regardless of whether a warrant is obtained. The State's rule also fails to account for advances in the 47 years since Schmerber was decided that allow for the more expeditious processing of warrant applications, particularly in contexts like drunk-driving investigations where the evidence supporting probable cause is simple. The natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support an exigency finding in a specific case, as it did in Schmerber, but it does not do so categorically. Pp. 8–13. (c) Because the State sought a per se rule here, it did not argue that there were exigent circumstances in this particular case. The arguments and the record thus do not provide the Court with an adequate 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. Pp. 20–23. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, joined by JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part III that other arguments advanced by the State and amici in support of a per se rule are unpersuasive. Their concern that a case-by-case approach to exigency will not provide adequate guidance to law enforcement officers may make the desire for a bright-line rule understandable, but the Fourth Amendment will not tolerate adoption of an overly broad categorical approach in this context. A fact-intensive, totality of the circumstances, approach is hardly unique within this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U. S. 119, 123–125. They also contend that the privacy interest implicated here is minimal. But motorists’ diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests. Finally, the government’s general interest in combating drunk driving does not justify departing from the warrant requirement without showing exigent circumstances that make securing a warrant impractical in a particular case. Pp. 15–20.
They can still penalize you under the implied consent for things like revoking your license. However, the Court struck down laws in over 10 states that provided for big fines and jail time as well (usually only imposed on drunk drivers in accidents and such). Anyway, that was how I understood it but IANAL... : )
You are full of opinions that go nowhere aren't ya?
Yeah.
You are a troll.
That's pretty rich coming from you.
So where is the reasonable cause that Rotten Cop was required to have before demanding any sort of medical test?
#30. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#26)
Index Utah Code Title 41 Motor Vehicles Chapter 6a Traffic Code Part 5 Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving Section 520 Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
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). (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.]
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
(Edited)
He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.
#32. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#29)
#33. To: Tooconservative (#31)
There is nothing in the law to support what Rotten Cop did.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#30)
Rotten Cop did not "request a test". The patient was unconscious at the time.
#35. To: misterwhite (#7)
The nurse was wrong. The cop was right.
#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.
#37. To: Tooconservative (#27)
#38. To: hondo68, misterwhite (#19)
When the scientologists start burning police cars, and looting Mormon Underwear shops?
#39. To: buckeroo (#38)
#40. To: A K A Stone (#39)
#41. To: buckeroo (#40)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#41)
#43. To: misterwhite (#33)
Then why is the department changing their policy on blood draws?
#44. 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.
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
The cop doesn't have a pot to piss in.
#46. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Pinguinite, nolu chan, Vicomte13, hondo68 (#41)
(Edited)
All of this did occur hours after the crash. Payne was acting as an agent of the Logan PD, where the crash occurred as a direct result of the Utah highway patrol engaging in a high-speed pursuit. In a written report, Payne said he was responding to a request from Logan police to get the blood sample, to determine whether the patient had illicit substances in his system at the time of the crash. Payne explained the “exigent circumstances and implied consent law” to Wubbels, but, according to his report, she said “her policies won’t allow me to obtain the blood sample without a warrant.”
#47. To: buckeroo (#42)
#48. To: Tooconservative (#46)
#49. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#50. To: kenh (#49)
(Edited)
Utah hospital to cops: Stay away from our nurses
#51. To: A K A Stone (#48)
After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.
#52. To: Tooconservative (#46)
she said “her policies won’t allow me to obtain the blood sample without a warrant.”
#53. To: Tooconservative (#46)
The Logan PD has not given any good reason why they were trying to get a blood sample from a victim of a high-speed chase on a crowded road.
#54. To: misterwhite (#53)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#48)
After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.
#56. To: misterwhite (#52)
Never mind. I just answered my own question.
#57. To: Tooconservative, Trump the Uniter, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#51)
complaints against the conduct of cops in SLC hit an all-time high. The public thinks they are very arrogant and exceed their authority regularly
#58. To: misterwhite (#53)
Would that make a difference? If the reason is good enough, this all goes away? Suddenly law enforcement is right and the nurse is wrong and should be thrown in jail?
#59. To: Tooconservative (#58)
#60. To: Tooconservative (#56)
It can hardly be an unfamiliar experience for you.
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
You ask these questions as though their answers would make a difference. They won't and you know it. So why waste everyone's time?
The answer could be as simple as a police department policy which states that in every vehicular accident involving a death, blood samples are taken of everyone involved.
#62. To: Tooconservative (#30)
(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).
#63. To: Pinguinite (#62)
(Edited)
Implied consent doesn't even come into play in this case.
#64. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite (#63)
Don't be confused by white's ridiculous ideas about "implied consent". The law requires a suspect to give consent to a blood test, period. It spells it out. The officer must also have grounds to believe that a DUI or other impairment charge is warranted. The only exception is when a judge signs a warrant for a blood draw.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
v.
MCNEELY
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
Yes, it has nothing to do with creating a state right to stick a needle into you without consent. That is still in 4th Amendment territory.
#66. To: A K A Stone (#47)
#67. To: buckeroo (#66)
#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)
#69. To: buckeroo (#68)
You are a troll.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]