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: 11433
Comments: 69
Wubbels tells Camerota that she feels “really betrayed,” and not just by the SLCPD either: — CNN (@CNN) September 4, 2017 “I was scared to death,” she said. “I was obviously very frightened … I really feel betrayed.” She said she feels betrayed by the police officers and by the university police and security. Wubbels alerted the university PD when Detective Jeff Payne first got there, feeling he was out of control and a potential problem. They ended up doing nothing, and so Payne told Wubbels that he was going to leave the hospital “with blood vials or a body in tow.” Wubbels stood her ground, and Payne arrested her, pushing her violently out the door in full view of hospital staff … and security cameras, not to mention his own body camera. Wubbels tells NBC that the police need to police themselves if they want to rebuild trust with the Salt Lake community — and the same goes for the university PD, too: That’s not an overstatement. The incident touched off anger in the Salt Lake Valley that may still be crescendoing. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that residents in the city have been flooding 911 with protest calls — some of which purport to call in an assault at the hospital, and then describe Wubbels’ arrest by Payne. The SLCPD had to put out a public request giving out a special number for protest calls in order to keep 911 resources from being overwhelmed. The protest even spread to other communities, prompting other police agencies to distance themselves from Payne while praising Wubbels: Meanwhile, a criminal probe has been opened into Payne’s conduct: Payne may be risking more than one job. He also moonlights as an EMT, and remarked to other police officers that he might retaliate against University Hospital by dumping transients on them. The SLC Tribune reported that those comments certainly got the attention of his other boss: When the other officer tells Payne that the staff at the hospital probably won’t be very happy with him, Payne responds, ”I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere.” … Gold Cross President Mike Moffitt said the company was conducting an internal investigation into Payne’s conduct. The company was not aware of the incident prior to media reports Thursday, he said, adding that he was dismayed and surprised as he watched the videos. For now, Payne finds himself on administrative leave from his police job while the mayor and police chief try to make amends with the hospital and Wubbels: Earlier in the day, Brown and Biskupski called the University Hospital nurse, Alex Wubbels, to apologize. They then held a news conference, saying they were alarmed by what they saw on police body camera footage of the arrest, which took place July 26, and said changes to police blood draw policies and officer training had been made. Wubbels knew the law better than the police. NBC correctly points out that the Supreme Court ruled last year that blood cannot be taken without a warrant or patient consent. The ruling in Birchfield last year related specifically to driving under the influence. In fact, the dissents from Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Birchfield didn’t argue for warrantless blood searches, but to require warrants for breathalyzers, which the majority allowed without warrants. Justice Clarence Thomas wanted to classify blood draws and breathalyzers alike too, but to allow them under exigent circumstances when probable cause for drunk driving existed. However, the accident in this case was caused by a suspect in a police chase, and Payne had no reasonable cause to suspect the patient of being at fault in the accident, let alone being impaired before it. Oh, and as it turns out, the patient was — wait for it — a police officer who had committed no crime at all. William Gray was working his full-time job as a truck driver when a police chase resulted in a collision with Gray’s truck, but he’s also a reserve officer for the Rigby, Idaho police department. Salt Lake City PD had no reason to suspect that he committed any crime, and the Rigby PD immediately issued a public statement hailing Wubbels’ “heroic” act in protecting his rights: The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act. Payne deserves a full hearing to determine his status with law enforcement, and the full benefits of due process. Had Payne concerned himself with due process for Gray, ironically, he wouldn’t need it now. So far, Wubbels has not filed a lawsuit, but it’s a pretty good guess that SLCPD will consider Payne a liability whether she does or not. By the way, NBC also notes that Wubbels is a former Olympian: Wubbels gets a gold medal here. Poster Comment: This story has taken on a real life of its own, in Utah and well beyond. The video shows the campus cops just standing there and doing nothing to protect her as she was hauled out of her workplace unlawfully. “Any nurse I think would have done exactly what I did,” Alex Wubbels told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on New Day this morning. Wubbels got arrested by a Salt Lake City police officer for refusing to withdraw blood from a patient without a search warrant at the end of July. The video of the arrest went viral after Wubbels released it late last week, as John noted on Friday, and Salt Lake City has been dealing with the fallout ever since. “I was scared to death… I feel betrayed,” says nurse arrested for refusing to allow a patient’s blood to be drawn https://t.co/PL30DzGjkR pic.twitter.com/F3AwnRfIxe Wubbels was pressed on what was going through her head when all of this was happening. Even Utah police departments that had nothing to do with the episode were feeling the wrath of Wubbels’ arrest. South Salt Lake police spokesman Gary Keller said his department mistakenly received many phone calls and ”nasty” messages about Payne on Friday. In a Facebook post, South Salt Lake police Chief Jack Carruth agreed the video had been “shocking for all of us to see” and commended Wubbels, before clarifying no South Salt Lake officers had been involved. The Unified Police Department similarly pointed people in Salt Lake City‘s direction, adding ”we are two completely different police departments.” After meeting with the Salt Lake County district attorney, Salt Lake City officials said Unified would conduct a criminal probe into the episode. An internal affairs unit investigation into Payne’s actions is underway, as is one by the Police Civilian Review Board, Mayor Jackie Biskupski said Friday. Detective Jeff Payne told another officer that he works a second job as a paramedic with Gold Cross Ambulance and brings patients to University Hospital, body camera footage obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune shows. City officials said late Friday the Unified Police Department would conduct the criminal probe. Meanwhile, an internal affairs investigation by Salt Lake City police into the officer, Detective Jeff Payne, also is ongoing. Payne was placed on administrative leave Friday afternoon, as was a second unnamed officer connected to the confrontation. On July 26th of this year, one of our reserve officers, William Gray was the victim in a horrific accident in northern Utah while working his full-time job as a truck driver. The suspect in this incident was fleeing from Utah State Highway Patrol, when he crossed into oncoming traffic and collided head on with Gray’s truck, severely injuring Gray, and killing himself. Officer Gray was flown to the University of Utah’s burn unit where he remains under their watchful, professional, and competent care. … Wubbels is a former Olympic athlete who competed as an Alpine skier in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympics. She has worked at the hospital since 2009.
There's some real anger out there if the SLC Mormons are pranking their 911 over it in protest.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
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!
You've been hanging out with that smelly White kid again, haven't you?
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.
Those GOD-DAMNED MORMONS were the precursor to today's SCIENTOLOGISTS.
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.
Obviously, in your mind. But it isn't true.
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.
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.
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 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. No, it will hang him and he will soon be an ex-cop and an ex-EMT. 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.
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.
I'm telling you that L.Ron Hubbard is the re-incarnation of Joseph Smith! When will you people wake up?
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?
You need to make it your mission in life to inform everyone of the Smith/Hubbard reincarnation threat.
Their statement is the second-to-last gray quote in the article above. Yes, they thanked her very nicely. He has to try to cling to any shred of legality to make his argument, such as it is.
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?
Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.
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. 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. 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.
Not "to make his argument". It's instead "to defend a cop".
When the scientologists start burning police cars, and looting Mormon Underwear shops? Lock him up!
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.
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... 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.
Almost forgot the required graphic...
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.
Index Utah Code 76-8-306. Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.
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
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.
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). 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.
He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.
I did another search for recent bills in the Utah legislature and came up with the following: Anyway, we find that Section 1a and 1b are still the same as they have been for decades. The officer must have reasonable cause to believe that a driver has blood levels of alcohol or drugs in violation of Utah law. Rotten Cop had no such reasonable cause to believe this about another officer (the accident victim) and was not even present at the accident scene. Nor was there any changes in section 2a: "A peace officer requesting a test or tests shall warn a person that refusal to submit to the test or tests may result in revocation of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle". Rotten Cop did not "request a test". The patient was unconscious at the time. Rotten Cop did not "warn a person" about refusal. Again, the patient was unconscious. Utah state law has no provision for LEO to obtain any blood sample under the implied consent law whatsoever. For any other purpose, such as involuntary blood tests in other types of cases, they must get a warrant from a judge.
So he says. Where are the radio recordings to back up his story? Why would he, a SLC Unified PD detective, be doing this job when it was entirely a Utah state patrol accident? Again, he did not have reasonable cause. Again, he did not request a blood test from the (unconscious) driver. Again, he did not warn the (unconscious) suspect that he could lose his license for refusing to submit to a blood test. There is nothing in the law to support what Rotten Cop did. You may as well admit it. You're just making yourself look like a total scumbag.
BTW, I did find where Utah did the changes in July 2017. It had to do with conditional licenses and operating a boat drunk in a law that sunsetted in 2015 and they just finally updated the implied consent statute to harmonize these changes. Utah: HB0193, 41-6a-520 changes for 2017 This HB0193 was a big housekeeping bill to update a lot of statutes, 41-6a-520 among them.
Then why is the department changing their policy on blood draws? I mean, if Mr. Rotten Cop was being a real cowboy, breaking all the rules, arresting people, demanding things he wasn't entitled to by law, why make changes to good policy? Unless he WAS following long-standing lawful procedures and now the department is using him (and his supervisor) as scapegoats to cover their asses. But go ahead. Blame the cop. It's what you're good at.
Hence, "implied consent" in the title of the statute . If the statute only covered drivers who were conscious and could give consent, then the statute would simply read "consent". Obtaining a driver's license in the State of Utah means you give your consent to a blood draw whether you're conscious, unconscious, alive or dead. And I bet the police phlebologist (Mr. Rotten Cop) could cite a dozen instances where this wasn't a problem at the hospital. Until he encountered Ms. Stupid Nurse who doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. But we haven't heard his side, have we? Just Ms. Blabbermouth Nurse.
The Supreme Court is superior to all cops. The Supreme Court says that the nurse was right and the cop was wrong. Soon, the cop will be an ex-cop, and an ex-EMT, the other cop will suffer important financial consequences, The people are angry, and the police are part of the government. The government answers to the people.
The Constitution trumps state and local law, and the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. Utah's state law may say that you give consent, but the Supreme Court says that Utah's law is not legal, so in an instant Utah's law isn't law anymore, because superior law nullifies it. The nurse was upholding superior law. The cop used force to enforce illegal law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. So the cop and the watch supervisor who told him to make the arrest have no excuse, and they have to burn for their crimes. Their punishment needs to be public, because the public needs to see these cops punished as an example to the rest of the cops, that they are not above the law and they need to know the law before they start pulling out handcuffs, particularly on medical personnel in hospitals. The city police department is changing its protocol because its protocol results in unconstitutional acts.
And anyway, it isn't the Utah law that governs here, it is the United States Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court. The cop doesn't have a pot to piss in.
The day is coming, hondo. Look how misterwhite has gone coo-coo already.
Maybe misterwhir is a former cop who liked beating people.
You should not speculate on anyone as your voting history is ruined with political sabotage tarnishing your own record as a defender of the republic.
Comments (41 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThere's some real anger out there if the SLC Mormons are pranking their 911 over it in protest.
#2. To: buckeroo (#1)
The cops were afraid for their own lives performing a mission to serve and protect the publick.
#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#4. To: Tooconservative (#2)
(Edited)
JAIL 'em all, HANG 'em ALL HIGH, from the top of the tree branches, I say!
#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.
#6. To: buckeroo (#4)
Those GOD-DAMNED MORMONS were the precursor to today's SCIENTOLOGISTS.
#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.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#3)
The cop should be charged and imprisoned. Minimum 10 years.
#9. To: misterwhite (#7)
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.
#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.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#6)
Obviously, in your mind. But it isn't true.
#12. To: Tooconservative (#8)
#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?
#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.
Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?
#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.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#12)
Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?
#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?
She was wrong to interfere with a law enforcement officer acting under State of Utah law.
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?
#18. To: Tooconservative (#14)
He has to try to cling to any shred of legality to make his argument, such as it is.
#19. To: buckeroo, Tooconservative (#11)
(Edited)
When will you people wake up?
#20. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#21. To: misterwhite (#16)
Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.
#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".
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). (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.
#23. To: misterwhite, kenh (#16)
#24. To: Tooconservative (#17)
The Supremes ruled on this last year.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Show me the law she broke nolu chan style.
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.
(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:
#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)
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:
#27. To: misterwhite (#24)
Nope. Do I need to cite the State of Utah statute again?
#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. (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).
#29. To: Tooconservative (#28)
So where is the reasonable cause that Rotten Cop was required to have before demanding any sort of medical test?
#30. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#26)
Index Utah Code Title 41 Motor Vehicles Chapter 6a Traffic Code Part 5 Driving Under the Influence and Reckless Driving Section 520 Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.(1) (a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while: (i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, or 53-3-231; (ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or (iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in violation of Section 41-6a-517. (b) A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii). (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.]
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
(Edited)
He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.
#32. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#29)
#33. To: Tooconservative (#31)
There is nothing in the law to support what Rotten Cop did.
#34. To: Tooconservative (#30)
Rotten Cop did not "request a test". The patient was unconscious at the time.
#35. To: misterwhite (#7)
The nurse was wrong. The cop was right.
#36. To: misterwhite (#34)
Obtaining a driver's license in the State of Utah means you give your consent to a blood draw whether you're conscious, unconscious, alive or dead.
#37. To: Tooconservative (#27)
#38. To: hondo68, misterwhite (#19)
When the scientologists start burning police cars, and looting Mormon Underwear shops?
#39. To: buckeroo (#38)
#40. To: A K A Stone (#39)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]