[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: 9201
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 62.

#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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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).

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.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-09-05   14:21:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 62.

#63. To: Pinguinite (#62) (Edited)

Implied consent doesn't even come into play in this case.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05 14:48:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 62.

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