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

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles

Title: Arrested Utah Nurse Had It Coming
Source: Saily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/04/arrested-utah-nurse-had-it-coming/
Published: Sep 4, 2017
Author: Gregg RE, Associate editor
Post Date: 2017-09-04 18:49:15 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 16005
Comments: 123

The near-universal outrage surrounding the arrest of Alex Wubbels, the Salt Lake City nurse who was arrested July 26 for refusing to let police officers draw blood from an unconscious crash victim, empowered Wubbels and her attorney to threaten legal action against the police on CNN’s “New Day” on Monday. At the very least, Wubbels says, she’d like to “re-educate” the police department on proper procedure.

Prospective students are advised to steer clear of Wubbels’ courses. Despite reams of inaccurate reporting on the incident, Wubbels was likely legally wrong to obstruct the police officer. The case is a much closer one than it appears.

In a widely-seen video documenting her arrest, Wubbels calmly tells a police officer, Jeff Payne, that hospital policy permits the police to draw blood from patients in only three instances: when the patient consents, when the patient is under arrest, or when the police officer has a warrant.

After a hospital administrator tells Payne he is making a “mistake” by insisting he has the right to obtain the blood, Payne arrests the nurse, who howls her way outside of the building and proceeds to put the “salt” in Salt Lake City.

The hospital’s policy does not have the force of law, even if the local police department agreed to its terms. And crucially, the policy overlooks a well-established exception to the warrant requirement: Police simply do not need a warrant if exigent circumstances justify an urgent search and seizure of evidence. The imminent loss of blood evidence, which would be useful in a drunk-driving case, qualifies as a potentially exigent circumstance.

A quick hypothetical. Let’s say you’re watching an unlikely UCLA comeback in the peace and quiet of your own home on the day before Labor Day, when suddenly your neighbor bursts through your front door with a pile of drugs in his hands. You hear police sirens in the background, and your neighbor says, “They’re coming for me!”

As your neighbor busies himself by tossing his cocaine into your toilet, the doorbell rings, and the police request to come inside. They’ve seen your neighbor running into your house with what they suspect are drugs.

“A-ha,” you say. “I have a policy. No police in my house without my consent, or a warrant, or unless I’m under arrest.”

The police would be justified in pushing you aside – even breaking your door down if necessary – to get to your bathroom. As long as a reasonable person would conclude that evidence is in imminent risk of destruction, the police can enter your home for the limited purpose of preventing that destruction.

If you actively impeded their access to the bathroom, you would likely find yourself at least temporarily detained. (Wubbels was only detained for approximately twenty minutes).

In its reporting of this incident, The New York Times falsely claimed that “the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have the right to draw blood in drunk driving investigations without a warrant.”

But the case the Times cites, Missouri v. McNeely, does not stand for that proposition at all. The court explicitly held in McNeely that some drunk-driving cases could permit warrantless blood draws.

“When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonably 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,” the Court wrote. “Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol’s dissipation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts….”

There are some more complicated questions at play here. The police are on far shakier ground if they demanded the nurse to draw blood for them, as opposed to the police drawing the blood themselves. But the video suggests that the police wanted to draw blood here.

“If she interferes in any way with me getting the blood drawn, she needs to be arrested,” an officer says early on in the video. And The Washington Post has reported that Payne is a trained police phlebotomist, meaning that he is sent to hospitals to collect blood from patients and check for illicit substances.

But the coverage of this incident has focused so much on outrage that outlets cannot agree on even this basic factual issue. CNN has reported that the nurse “refused to let police officers draw blood.” The New York Times reported that the nurse was arrested after “refusing to draw patient’s blood.” News outlets cannot even agree on who was going to draw the blood.

Officer Payne is now on paid administrative leave. The chief of the Salt Lake City police department has said he is “alarmed” and “sorry.” There is talk of lawsuits and criminal investigation. The mayor of Salt Lake City has called the arrest “completely unacceptable” and apologized.

These are moves are necessitated not by the law, but public relations. Wubbels says in the video that “you can’t put me under arrest.”

Unfortunately, and only because she is a sympathetic nurse up against a faceless Officer Payne in the YouTube era, she may have been right.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 114.

#2. To: misterwhite (#0)

Author: Gregg RE, Associate editor

Are you altering your sources? Where did it say that he was an associate editor?

The page says "Gregg Re, Freelance Writer".

A quick look at his history shows that he used to post a lot of stories there but that this is his first story there since May 2013.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-04   19:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)

If you haven't already, you should read the comments. This dimwit is getting absolutely roasted.

kenh  posted on  2017-09-05   9:27:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: kenh (#5)

If you haven't already, you should read the comments. This dimwit is getting absolutely roasted.

I did read them as well as the comments at YouTube on their videos and a few other sites that covered this story. And I read a lot of them too.

I'd say that comments that support for the nurse and hate on the cops is about 1000:1. If even that.

This is one of those stories that starts out very small but quickly grows legs, really completely out of proportion to the incident itself. It has, as they say, struck a nerve.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   9:42:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: All (#6)

A bit more on how the incident started from Fox13 in Salt Lake City.

. . .

According to the Logan Police Department, officers responded to 6200 South and Highway 89/91 in Wellsville after the deadly crash.

The crash occurred after Utah Highway Patrol received numerous 911 calls reporting an erratic driver, and troopers attempted a traffic stop on a black Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck.

The driver of the pickup truck fled from troopers, and during the ensuing pursuit the driver veered into the oncoming lanes and struck a semi-truck head on.

. . .

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   10:00:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: All, Pinguinite, misterwhite, Vicomte13, nolu chan, hondo68, A K A Stone, kenh (#8)

A bit more, quoting the WaPo article. Rotten Cop admits he and Logan PD have no probable cause to draw the victim's blood at all, an absolute requirement under Utah law. This escaped my notice when I watched earlier.

A 19-minute video from the body camera of a fellow officer shows the bitter argument that unfolded on the floor of the hospital’s burn unit. (Things get especially rough around the 6-minute mark).

A group of hospital officials, security guards and nurses are seen pacing nervously in the ward. Payne can be seen standing in a doorway, arms folded over his black polo shirt, waiting as hospital officials talk on the phone.

“So why don’t we just write a search warrant,” the officer wearing the body camera says to Payne.

“They don’t have PC,” Payne responds, using the abbreviation for probable cause, which police must have to get a warrant for search and seizure. He adds that he plans to arrest the nurse if she doesn’t allow him to draw blood. “I’ve never gone this far,” he says.

After several minutes, Wubbels shows Payne and the other officer a printout of the hospital’s policy on obtaining blood samples from patients. With her supervisor on speakerphone, she calmly tells them they can’t proceed unless they have a warrant or patient consent, or if the patient is under arrest.

“The patient can’t consent, he’s told me repeatedly that he doesn’t have a warrant, and the patient is not under arrest,” she says. “So I’m just trying to do what I’m supposed to do, that’s all.”

“So I take it without those in place, I’m not going to get blood,” Payne says.

Wubbels’s supervisor chimes in on the speakerphone. “Why are you blaming the messenger,” he asks Payne.

“She’s the one that has told me no,” the officer responds.

“Sir, you’re making a huge mistake because you’re threatening a nurse,” Wubbels’s supervisor says over the phone.

At that point, Payne seems to lose it.

He paces toward the nurse and tries to swat the phone out of her hand. “We’re done here,” he yells. He grabs Wubbels by the arms and shoves her through the automatic doors outside the building.

This appears to be a case of a conspiracy by UHP, Logan PD, and SLCUPD to knowingly deprive a crime victim of his constitutional rights. There will be big lawsuits filed against all three organizations.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   10:32:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative (#10)

A bit more, quoting the WaPo article. Rotten Cop admits he and Logan PD have no probable cause to draw the victim's blood at all, an absolute requirement under Utah law.

41-6a-522. Person incapable of refusal.

Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-5 520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S522.html

Pesky facts.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   10:56:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#15)

Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-5 520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.

Unconstitutional. A void law.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   10:59:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

Unconstitutional. A void law.

He comes down from the mountain and speaks! Heed his words!

(A U.S. Supreme Court ruling would add a little credibility to your words.)

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   11:14:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#20)

(A U.S. Supreme Court ruling would add a little credibility to your words.)

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   15:49:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: nolu chan (#66)

McNeely seems to be the major direction of the Court but they muddied the waters a bit in their 2016 case, Birchfield v. North Dakota.

At least, I find parsing the two to be difficult.

NYSlimes:

WASHINGTON — The police must obtain warrants to test the blood of motorists arrested on suspicion of drunken driving, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, but no warrants are needed to conduct a breath test.

The case, Birchfield v. North Dakota, No. 14-1468, consolidated with two others, arose from laws that made it a crime for motorists suspected of drunken driving to refuse breath or blood tests.

The court’s split decision considered three cases: one from Minnesota and two from North Dakota.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a part of the decision determined by a 7-to-1 vote, said laws effectively requiring blood tests violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. In a part decided by a 6-to-2 vote, Justice Alito wrote that laws requiring breath tests are permissible.

“Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test,” he wrote.

When all that is sought is a suspect’s breath, he wrote, “the physical intrusion is almost negligible,” adding that “the effort is no more demanding than blowing up a party balloon.”

Moreover, he wrote, “breath tests are capable of revealing only one bit of information, the amount of alcohol in the subject’s breath.”

But blood tests, Justice Alito wrote, “are a different matter,” requiring piercing of the skin and extraction of “a part of the subject’s body.”

“In addition,” he wrote, “a blood test, unlike a breath test, places in the hands of law enforcement authorities a sample that can be preserved and from which it is possible to extract information beyond” what can be learned from a breath test.

In a partial dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said warrants should be required for both kinds of tests.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   16:12:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Tooconservative (#67)

Why is that difficult to parse? Breath tests, ok without a warrant because trivial. Blood tests: warrant required.

In both cases the privacy interest of the individual is held as being of greater importance than any law enforcement objective.

What the cop was trying to do in Utah was illegal. The nurse was right. His arresting her was illegal. The supervisor who directed that it happen ordered illegal acts. And ignorance of the law is no excuse, ESPECIALLY not for cops.

Whereas cops are given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the use of force, the opposite rule should be the case when they are enforcing the law. Ignorance of the law should not only not be an excuse FOR THE COPS, but should bring with it the strict liability against them that they apply to the citizenry regarding each and every law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and when the cops are ignorance of the law, it should be a separate and specific offense. The cops have to be forced to learn the law and obey it, and when they don't, they need to be very severely punished, to put the fear of God in the rest of them.

When cops don't obey the law, they damage the very loyalty of people to the republic. That's a serious thing that warrants very harsh punishment.

More cops need to fined, found personally liable, given jail time, broken, expelled from the force. The police forces need to be beaten into submission to the law.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   16:20:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Vicomte13 (#70) (Edited)

Why is that difficult to parse? Breath tests, ok without a warrant because trivial. Blood tests: warrant required.

Well, no, I did get that. It was consistent. But the circumstances of the two cases and the results...well, I found parts of it confusing. But IANAL so I shouldn't expect to have a perfect understanding of the Court's finer distinctions in their verdicts.

Overall, the 2016 case restated in even stronger terms the results of the 2013 case.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-05   16:27:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Tooconservative (#72)

Well, no, I did get that. It was consistent. But the circumstances of the two cases and the results...well, I found parts of it confusing. But IANAL so I shouldn't expect to have a perfect understanding of the Court's finer distinctions in their verdicts.

Overall, the 2016 case restated in even stronger terms the results of the 2013 case.

This is why I find Mr White's position so perverse.

You can't look at those cases and not see that a warrant is required for an involuntary blood draw (and that an "implied consent" law of some state is inferior to and cannot supersede the Supreme Court, because federal constitutional law is supreme over state law to the contrary).

But he is so very dogged about this that his determination on the matter interests me. I have to think that he's having fun with us. There's no reasonable read of the law that gets us to where he is.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   16:43:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Vicomte13 (#73)

There's no reasonable read of the law that gets us to where he is.

41-6a-522. Person incapable of refusal.

Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-5 520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.

Does this confuse you or is it pretty straightforward?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   17:06:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: misterwhite (#77) (Edited)

Does this confuse you or is it pretty straightforward?

It's utterly irrelevant. The Supreme Court has spoken on the matter of blood draws, and because we are a federal union with federal supremacy, the Utah state and local laws are utterly obliterated, erased from having any force, by the superior federal law.

Yes, that's the Utah statute. So what? No analysis is needed. The Supreme Court says no warrantless blood draws without consent anywhere in the United States. Utah can't make laws opposed to that. Neither can Puerto Rico or American Samoa, for that matter. Federal Constitutional rights trump state laws and regulations to the contrary, every time.

Federal supremacy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   18:37:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Vicomte13 (#85)

The Supreme Court says no warrantless blood draws without consent anywhere in the United States. Utah can't make laws opposed to that.

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   19:41:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: misterwhite (#87)

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

So we are to override everything, abuse and arrest nurses, in order to do a blood draw for CIVIL liability?

Nah.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-05   20:27:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Vicomte13 (#88)

So we are to override everything, abuse and arrest nurses,

It needn't be that way. The cop said it was the first time it had gone this far.

"I'm here to do a blood draw."
"Fine. He's in Room 4."

Boom. Done.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-05   20:55:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: misterwhite (#89)

It needn't be that way. The cop said it was the first time it had gone this far.

"I'm here to do a blood draw." "Fine. He's in Room 4."

Boom. Done.

No.

"I'm here to do a blood draw."

"Let me see your warrant."

"I have none."

"Then you cannot draw blood in this hospital. We need to see a warrant before you can touch a patient."

"Ok." Leaves to get electronic warrant.

Boom. Done.

Instead, the cop lost his EMT job, and will lose his police job, and his supervisor will be severely sanctioned, and Salt Lake City will pay a lot of money in damages, because this cop could not follow the law and take "no" for an answer. He bullied his way forward under color of authority, broke the law, and now he needs to be publicly crucified, to put the appropriate degree of fear into police officers all across the nation.

The only way to get their attention is through a zero tolerance policy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. When the cops step out of line, they need to be crucified for it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-06   6:29:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Vicomte13 (#91)

"I'm here to do a blood draw."
"Let me see your warrant."
"Your policy for hospital blood draws may require a warrant, but I don't need one. Here's my "warrant" -- a copy of State of Utah law which reads:

41-6a-522. 522. 522. 522. Pe 522. Person incapable of refusal.
Any person who is dead, unconscious, or in any other condition rendering the person incapable of refusal to submit to any chemical test or tests is considered to not have withdrawn the consent provided for in Subsection 41-6a-5 520(1), and the test or tests may be administered whether the person has been arrested or not.

Now get the fuck out of my way or I will have you arrested for obstructing an officer during an investigation.

(Screams follow)

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-06   10:06:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: misterwhite (#92)

(Screams follow)

That's the part you really like, isn't it?

And the Supreme Court has already weighed in, as has been explained to you repeatedly. No state law can overrule the USSC.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-06   10:32:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Tooconservative (#93)

No state law can overrule the USSC.

They're not. The USSC ruled on "A" and the State of Utah is doing "B".

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-06   10:43:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: misterwhite (#94)

"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."

So you're saying that Utah has the right to suspend the drivers licenses of dead people and that is the purpose of this law?

You've gone around the bend. You need psychiatric help.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-06   11:07:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Tooconservative (#95)

So you're saying that Utah has the right to suspend the drivers licenses of dead people and that is the purpose of this law?

I have cited the law many times. I know you can read.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-06   11:12:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: misterwhite (#96) (Edited)

I have cited the law many times. I know you can read.

You have cited the wrong law. You have cited some puny state statute. States bow before the might of the Federal Government and the Federal Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has spoken. The state law is crushed and erased, because in this land, the Supreme Court of the United States is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and - regardless of your opinion of it - state law is an ant that is squashed by federal supremacy.

"States Rights" over against federal power was settled at Appomattox. It does not exist. It has not existed for 152 years. it will not be resurrected for this case.

Some states still had laws on their books barring interracial marriage until a few years ago. But the Supreme Court spoke on the matter in 1967, and by that decision erased all authority of all states, individually or combined, on the matter. All federal, state and local laws to the contrary were erased by the supreme authority over the law exercised by the Supreme Court of the United States.

So, you can quote the "law" all you want, but that law no longer exists any more than a law against interracial marriage that sits, unrepealed, on the books. Those dead laws that haven't been repealed stand there like Confederate monuments, silent testimony to the supremacy of the federal government, Supreme Court, and federal law. The local people in the state made a law, and the federal government erased the law completely by one opinion.

States are completely subordinate to the Supreme Court and federal law on matters of the federal Constitution. You have quoted a "law" that is NOT a law at all, because the Supreme Court's decision erased that law.

So you're NOT quoting the law. You're effectively quoting the words on a Confederate monument and pretending that a defeated, voided, erased opinion of an inferior authority - the state of Utah - still has any force in the face of the majestic, supreme, overwhelming and unquestionably absolute authority of the Supreme Court to completely nullify the will of the people of Utah and replace it by one standard that is not what is in their now-dead law.

Same thing with gay marriage. It's a constitutional fact. States have statutes that say otherwise, but those statutes are not laws. They are monuments to a defeated resistance, nothing more.

That's the way it is. You're not quoting law. You're quoting dead statutes. voided by higher authority. Utah has no authority to stand against the Supreme Court.

No matter how much you want to refight the Civil War, the outcome of the Civil War stands, which means that Utah's OPINION on the matter - expressed in that voided law - is erased by the supreme, absolute and unassailable power of the Supreme Court.

You may not admit it. Payne didn't. He will kneel before that superior law and be whipped by it and submit to it nevertheless, because he is weak and it is strong.

You believe in the rule of the strongest. The Federal Supreme Court and federal law are stronger than Utah and it's now erased law, and most certainly stronger than some detective on the Salt Lake City PD.

The cops do not have a pot to piss in, and they will kneel before the law.

And yes, I am writing this in a way to be as explicitly offensive as possible, pissing all over the notion of "states rights", and exalting federal supremacy PRECISELY BECAUSE I know it pisses you off, and PRECISELY BECAUSE I know that that is how REAL POWER in the REAL WORLD is distributed. I know how much you like the cops to display power. I like power too. And I always go with the highest and most organized powers, because I always like to win. Dying for a weak and lost cause is always stupid. This cop took on a superpower, and he is going to be crushed. I know you hate that, which is precisely why I am exulting in it. You like to see people you consider inferior beaten down by the cops. And I like to see the people you like - cops - on their knees with superior authority to them smashing them in the face with a boot again and again and again.

We're both fascists at heart, you and I, but you go with Hitler, while I go with Truman and the Federal Government of the United States. I back the stronger horse - the one that burns down Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden...and Atlanta. The one that always wins.

You like exercises of police power. So do I. But you're an Imperial Stormtrooper kind of guy. I'm with Darth Vader and the Emperor.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   9:35:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite, Tooconservative (#103)

I know how much you like the cops to display power. I like power too. And I always go with the highest and most organized powers, because I always like to win. Dying for a weak and lost cause is always stupid. This cop took on a superpower, and he is going to be crushed. I know you hate that, which is precisely why I am exulting in it. You like to see people you consider inferior beaten down by the cops. And I like to see the people you like - cops - on their knees with superior authority to them smashing them in the face with a boot again and again and again.

We're both fascists at heart, you and I, but you go with Hitler, while I go with Truman and the Federal Government of the United States. I back the stronger horse - the one that burns down Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden...and Atlanta. The one that always wins.

You like exercises of police power. So do I. But you're an Imperial Stormtrooper kind of guy. I'm with Darth Vader and the Emperor.

Wow, wow, wow.

A Pole  posted on  2017-09-07   9:55:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#104)

Wow, wow, wow.

Vic is not saying anything so novel here. Over the last 15 years, it has become something of a favorite debate topic on whether we should cheer for the Empire or the rebels in Star Wars. This article is typical and introduced a lot of people to the topic.

Weekly Standard: The Case For The Empire

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-07   10:50:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Tooconservative (#108)

My wows are directed to the way vicecount expresses himself.

A Pole  posted on  2017-09-07   12:41:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: A Pole (#110)

My wows are directed to the way vicecount expresses himself.

I am the scion of a broken aristocratic French family, a bastard grandson of the Dutch van Oranjie, a legitimate great-grand nephew of J.E.B. Stuart, a former Navy pilot, a world class lawyer, a Catholic, married to a West Indian French woman, raising a US Olympian.

When I'm good, I'm very, very good - Jon Snow good.

And when I'm bad, I'm Tywin Lannister bad. Cardinal Richelieu bad.

My instinct, when presented with a threat of force, is to kill whoever makes it. It's concern for God's opinion on the matter that balks me, not the squeamishness of other men.

I'm a lawyer, I've studied the Common Law. It's taught in schools and generally enforced. But I ALSO know the other law, the Law of the Elite, which is not directly taught in schools, but which is taught through experience and contacts and observations. All societies have two systems of law, ours included. Or, in truth, we have three systems: The Common Law, for the working, middle and managerial class, and professionals. The Law of the Low is for them, and it's quite rough and ready. The Law of the Elite is a special set of unwritten laws that are as real as the statute law, and enforced with their own logic.

It is highly offensive to people in the middle class to hear the Law of the Elite spoken of as a real thing, an entity, separate and apart from the "Common Law", but it is. The Elite are not common, and don't have the same laws applied to them in the same way, except sometimes overzealous cops or prosecutors will pretend that there is only the Common Law and try to make that point by publicly imposing it on one of the lesser Elite.

Nobody at any level makes any bones about their being the Law of the Low. The common middle actually delights in it, because relative to it, the Common Law is quasi elite.

But this is getting esoteric and no subject has come up that invokes it (except, to a degree, the nurse case in Utah...but only to a degree).

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07   14:38:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#113) (Edited)

experience and contacts and observations. All societies have two systems of law, ours included. Or, in truth, we have three systems

I love this topic. Spin the yarn, please. And do it thoughtfully.

A Pole  posted on  2017-09-07   15:46:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 114.

#115. To: A Pole (#114)

Ok. Tonight.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-09-07 16:03:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 114.

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