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

Jamie Dimon’s quick kowtow after telling truth on communist China

Progressives forget that parents are in charge of kids’ education

NH Public Health Policy Has Officially Killed More “Kids” than COVID

CLIF HIGH AND DAVID NINO RODRIGUEZ - 11-26-21

Smartphones and Social Media - A Mass Surveillance Dystopia

In The Pacific NorThwest ... members of survivalisT movemenTs --- are growing in number ( 2016)

Biden-Harris dream team suddenly Dems' worst nightmare after just 10 months

Democrats' deepest fears

If GOP wins in 2022, they must investigate Biden family corruption

BOOM: Trump Gets Even MORE Good News From 5 Key Battleground States

The Corrupt Media Did Not Fall For The Russia Collusion Hoax. They Were Part Of It

Attempts barred to Access Info about Brandon's daughter!

How Facebook and Google Actually Fund the Creation of Misinformation

Build Back Better’s tax hikes will squeeze Americans long into the future — yet still won’t cover its spending

Whistleblower Videos Capture Pennsylvania Election Officials Destroying Evidence

Feehery: The next Republican wave is coming

FULL RELEASE: Ashley Biden Diary Reveals Child Sex Trauma, Drug Abuse, Resentment For Joe – Whistleblower

Proof that AG Garland misled Congress about silencing parents who dissent

Trump ... ‘ The USA is ' --- ' a Radicalized Mess’

IT’S NOT JUST WHITE PEOPLE: DEMOCRATS ARE LOSING NORMAL VOTERS OF ALL RACES

Pinkerton: Joe Biden and John Kerry’s Green Great Reset Punishes America, Rewards China

Are You Better Off Today Than You Were 10 Months Ago? (Does a bear sh-t in the woods?_

Byron York's Daily Memo: The Biden White House dumpster fire

Washington Post edits and adds editor's notes to at least a dozen Steele dossier stories

Media ... sacrifices RiTTenhouse --- aT alTar of iTs lies

Byron York's Daily Memo: When Adam Schiff loved the dossier

SANHEDRIN BEGINS TO PREPARE OIL TO ANOINT KING MESSIAH/KOHEN GADOL

What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?

The Russian ATTack On Ukraine ... Has Already Begun --- Biden Will Do NoThing To STop IT

“The only Thing ThaT sTands beTween The new way of life ... The currenT way of life is - frankly --- hesiTancy To vaccinaTions,” he said.

Joe Biden is all-in for open borders

NJ Senate President Stephen Sweeney concedes election loss to GOP trucker Edward Durr

Virginia Paves the Way for Trump’s Return

Astro World Hell - First hand account - My prayers go out to everyone involved

Mississippi to launch mobile ID program with digital driver’s licenses and vaccine cards

Joe Biden just keeps on lying to the American public: Devine

Democrat Governor Who Pushed for Trump's Tax Returns Didn't Pay Income Tax for Years

CNN - Sesame STreeT Team Up ... To Push Vaccine Propaganda --- for Very Young Children

Supreme CourT Likely To Hold New York Law ViolaTes Second AmendmenT ... ConsTiTuTioal RighTs means --- we don'T need permiTs - permission

PoTenTial apex TargeTs above him in The invesTigaTion ... range from STeele himself --- To ClinTon general counsel Marc Elias To ClinTon campaign officials.

ERs Across The Nation ... Are CompleTely Overwhelmed WiTh Non-Covid PaTienTs --- Is This The ‘vaccine effecT’ in acTion?

President Biden's Not So Stellar Report Card

A deserved Democratic defeat and Republican victory

LAODICEAN FRANKLIN GRAHAM PLEADS WITH EVANGELICALS ... TO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT OF VACCINATION --- SAYS HE’LL JOIN WITH JOE BIDEN TO PUSH THE JAB

What to watch for in Virginia on election night

Flashback (2013) MSNBC Says Children Belong to Community, Not Parents

I&I/TIPP Poll: Just 42% Now Think Biden Is ‘Mentally Sharp’

Democrats have screwed up everything — stop voting for them!

META will be a plaTform wiTh The approved ThoughTs - beliefs ... allow Them To escape realiTy --- like Zuckerberg.

L.G.B.


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: 6677
Comments: 69

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

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


Poster Comment:

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

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

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

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

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

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


#2. To: buckeroo (#1)

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

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

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


#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)

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

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

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


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

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

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


#5. To: Tooconservative (#0)

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

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

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

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

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


#6. To: buckeroo (#4)

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

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

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


#7. To: Tooconservative (#0)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


#9. To: misterwhite (#7)

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

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

The nurse was wrong. The cop was right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


#10. To: Tooconservative (#8)

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

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

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

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


#11. To: Tooconservative (#6)

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

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

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


#12. To: Tooconservative (#8)

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

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

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


#13. To: buckeroo (#11)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


#15. To: Tooconservative (#9)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


#18. To: Tooconservative (#14)

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

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

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


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

When will you people wake up?

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

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

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


#20. To: Tooconservative (#0)

Lock him up!

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


#21. To: misterwhite (#16)

Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.

Show me the law she broke nolu chan style.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

You're right.

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

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

(1)
(a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
(i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, 53-3-231, or 53-3-232;
(ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or
(iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in violation of Section 41-6a-517.
(b)A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).
(c)
(i) The peace officer determines which of the tests are administered and how many of them are administered.
(ii) If a peace officer requests more than one test, refusal by a person to take one or more requested tests, even though the person does submit to any other requested test or tests, is a refusal under this section.
(d)
(i) A person who has been requested under this section to submit to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, or urine, or oral fluids may not select the test or tests to be administered.
(ii) The failure or inability of a peace officer to arrange for any specific chemical test is not a defense to taking a test requested by a peace officer, and it is not a defense in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding resulting from a person's refusal to submit to the requested test or tests.
(2)
(a)A peace officer requesting a test or tests shall warn a person that refusal to submit to the test or tests may result in revocation of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle, a five or 10 year prohibition of driving with any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in the person's body depending on the person's prior driving history, and a three-year prohibition of driving without an ignition interlock device if the person:
(i) has been placed under arrest;
(ii) has then been requested by a peace officer to submit to any one or more of the chemical tests under Subsection (1); and
(iii) refuses to submit to any chemical test requested.
(b)
(i) Following the warning under Subsection (2)(a), if the person does not immediately request that the chemical test or tests as offered by a peace officer be administered, a peace officer shall, on behalf of the Driver License Division and within 24 hours of the arrest, give notice of the Driver License Division's intention to revoke the person's privilege or license to operate a motor vehicle.
(ii) When a peace officer gives the notice on behalf of the Driver License Division, the peace officer shall:
(A) take the Utah license certificate or permit, if any, of the operator;
(B) issue a temporary license certificate effective for only 29 days from the date of arrest; and
(C) supply to the operator, in a manner specified by the Driver License Division, basic information regarding how to obtain a hearing before the Driver License Division.
(c) A citation issued by a peace officer may, if provided in a manner specified by the Driver License Division, also serve as the temporary license certificate.
(d) As a matter of procedure, the peace officer shall submit a signed report, within 10 calendar days after the day on which notice is provided under Subsection (2)(b), that:
(i) the peace officer had grounds to believe the arrested person was in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii); and
(ii) the person had refused to submit to a chemical test or tests under Subsection (1).
(3) Upon the request of the person who was tested, the results of the test or tests shall be made available to the person.
(4)
(a) The person to be tested may, at the person's own expense, have a physician of the person's own choice administer a chemical test in addition to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(b) The failure or inability to obtain the additional test does not affect admissibility of the results of the test or tests taken at the direction of a peace officer, or preclude or delay the test or tests to be taken at the direction of a peace officer.
(c) The additional test shall be subsequent to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(5) For the purpose of determining whether to submit to a chemical test or tests, the person to be tested does not have the right to consult an attorney or have an attorney, physician, or other person present as a condition for the taking of any test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Almost forgot the required graphic...

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


#24. To: Tooconservative (#17)

The Supremes ruled on this last year.

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

"He was acting unlawfully."

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

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

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

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


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

Show me the law she broke nolu chan style.

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

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

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


#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)

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

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

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

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

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

Effective 5/9/2017
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
(1) (a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:

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


#27. To: misterwhite (#24)

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

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

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

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

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


#28. To: misterwhite (#26)

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

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

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

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

(b) A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).

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

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

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

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


#29. To: Tooconservative (#28)

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

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

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


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

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

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


Effective 5/9/2017
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
(1)
(a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
(i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, or 53-3-231;
(ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or
(iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in violation of Section 41-6a-517.
(b) A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).
(c)
(i) The peace officer determines which of the tests are administered and how many of them are administered.
(ii) If a peace officer requests more than one test, refusal by a person to take one or more requested tests, even though the person does submit to any other requested test or tests, is a refusal under this section.
(d)
(i) A person who has been requested under this section to submit to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, or urine, or oral fluids may not select the test or tests to be administered.
(ii) The failure or inability of a peace officer to arrange for any specific chemical test is not a defense to taking a test requested by a peace officer, and it is not a defense in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding resulting from a person's refusal to submit to the requested test or tests.
(2)
(a) A peace officer requesting a test or tests shall warn a person that refusal to submit to the test or tests may result in revocation of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle, a five or 10 year prohibition of driving with any measurable or detectable amount of alcohol in the person's body depending on the person's prior driving history, and a three-year prohibition of driving without an ignition interlock device if the person:
(i) has been placed under arrest;
(ii) has then been requested by a peace officer to submit to any one or more of the chemical tests under Subsection (1); and
(iii) refuses to submit to any chemical test requested.
(b)
(i) Following the warning under Subsection (2)(a), if the person does not immediately request that the chemical test or tests as offered by a peace officer be administered, a peace officer shall, on behalf of the Driver License Division and within 24 hours of the arrest, give notice of the Driver License Division's intention to revoke the person's privilege or license to operate a motor vehicle.
(ii) When a peace officer gives the notice on behalf of the Driver License Division, the peace officer shall:
(A) take the Utah license certificate or permit, if any, of the operator;
(B) issue a temporary license certificate effective for only 29 days from the date of arrest; and
(C) supply to the operator, in a manner specified by the Driver License Division, basic information regarding how to obtain a hearing before the Driver License Division.
(c) A citation issued by a peace officer may, if provided in a manner specified by the Driver License Division, also serve as the temporary license certificate.
(d) As a matter of procedure, the peace officer shall submit a signed report, within 10 calendar days after the day on which notice is provided under Subsection (2)(b), that:
(i) the peace officer had grounds to believe the arrested person was in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii); and
(ii) the person had refused to submit to a chemical test or tests under Subsection (1).
(3) Upon the request of the person who was tested, the results of the test or tests shall be made available to the person.
(4)
(a) The person to be tested may, at the person's own expense, have a physician of the person's own choice administer a chemical test in addition to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(b) The failure or inability to obtain the additional test does not affect admissibility of the results of the test or tests taken at the direction of a peace officer, or preclude or delay the test or tests to be taken at the direction of a peace officer.
(c) The additional test shall be subsequent to the test or tests administered at the direction of a peace officer.
(5) For the purpose of determining whether to submit to a chemical test or tests, the person to be tested does not have the right to consult an attorney or have an attorney, physician, or other person present as a condition for the taking of any test.


Amended by Chapter 181, 2017 General Session

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

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

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

Nor was there any changes in section 2a: "A peace officer requesting a test or tests shall warn a person that refusal to submit to the test or tests may result in revocation of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle".

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

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

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

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


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

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

So he says.

Where are the radio recordings to back up his story?

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

Again, he did not have reasonable cause.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


#33. To: Tooconservative (#31)

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

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

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

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

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


#34. To: Tooconservative (#30)

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

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

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

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

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

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


#35. To: misterwhite (#7)

The nurse was wrong. The cop was right.

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

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

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


#36. To: misterwhite (#34)

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

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

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

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

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


#37. To: Tooconservative (#27)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


#39. To: buckeroo (#38)

Maybe misterwhir is a former cop who liked beating people.

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


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

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

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


#41. To: buckeroo (#40)

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

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


#42. To: A K A Stone (#41)

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.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-04   23:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: misterwhite (#33)

Then why is the department changing their policy on blood draws?

Because they never dreamed that one of their cops would do something that stupid?

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   0:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

I understand that that is what you think it means. But it doesn't.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   0:59:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Vicomte13 (#37)

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

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   1:32:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite, Pinguinite, nolu chan, Vicomte13, hondo68 (#41) (Edited)

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:

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   2:27:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: buckeroo (#42)

What a lame joke. Not even funny.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-05   6:24:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Tooconservative (#46)

After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-05   7:14:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Tooconservative (#0)

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/04/utah- hospital-bars-cops-from-contact-with-nurses-after-appalling-arrest/

kenh  posted on  2017-09-05   8:20:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: kenh (#49) (Edited)

Utah hospital to cops: Stay away from our 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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   8:29:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: A K A Stone (#48)

After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   8:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Tooconservative (#46)

she said “her policies won’t allow me to obtain the blood sample without a warrant.”

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   9:49:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   9:51:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: misterwhite (#53)

Good grief! You are still defending the POS cops? All of them?

I guess I'm not really surprised though.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-09-05   9:58:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: A K A Stone (#48)

After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.

You kick my ass in a dream you better wake up and apologize.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   9:58:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: misterwhite (#52)

Never mind. I just answered my own question.

That's because you're only talking to yourself.

It can hardly be an unfamiliar experience for you.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   10:02:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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

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!

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

Hondo68  posted on  2017-09-05   10:07:20 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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?

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   10:09:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Tooconservative (#58)

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   10:18:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Tooconservative (#56)

It can hardly be an unfamiliar experience for you.

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.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   10:24:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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.

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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   10:49:38 ET  Reply   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   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   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#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   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: A K A Stone (#47)

You are full of opinions that go nowhere aren't ya?

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-05   21:09:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: buckeroo (#66)

Yeah.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-09-05   22:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: A K A Stone (#67)

You are a troll.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-09-05   22:51:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: buckeroo (#68)

You are a troll.

That's pretty rich coming from you.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-06   7:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


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