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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. 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: 11406 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: “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 — CNN (@CNN) September 4, 2017 Wubbels was pressed on what was going through her head when all of this was happening. “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: 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.” Meanwhile, a criminal probe has been opened into Payne’s conduct: 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. 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: 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. 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: 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. 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: 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. … 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 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. 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. 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 64. #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: 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. (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   #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   #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. 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) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MISSOURI v. MCNEELY 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. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-05   16:00:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 64. #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. 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...     : ) Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05 16:15:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 64. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/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