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: 19562
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-71) not displayed.
.
.
.
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
(Edited)
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.
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.
Yeah. That stupid federalism and states rights is so passe. We need a one-size size-fits-all federal government.
It IS passe. The Union won the Civil War. The Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Supreme Court IS the final authority on what the Constitution means. That's our structure of law, that's our system. Some people fought mighty hard for a different system, but they lost. The federal Constitution supersedes states rights and federalism on matters of personal liberties and protections under the Constitution, and search and seizure, blood taking, etc. - this is all center field of federal Constitutional jurisdiction. EVEN IN a federalist, states rights thematic, the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution STILL override state laws to the contrary. It's obvious. Taking a violent cop and his ignorant supervisor, who arrested a former Olympian nurse just doing HER job, to try to force an unconstitutional blood draw from an unconscious policeman who happened to also be a part-time truck driver, lying there burnt and unconscious after a police chase herded a car into him - honestly you would have to work to find a worse set of facts, a more unsympathetic case for the police. So it seems to me that you're making this case a basis on which to try to refight the outcome of the Civil War. You've gotta pick better battlefields than this one. If THIS is the battleground on which to challenge federal constitutional protection, you're more likely to get a complete federalization of the police out of this case than you are a carve out from 4th Amendment jurisprudence to allow the cops in Utah to abuse whomever, whenever, wherever, over whatever, because they wanna. This is not a hill to die on. And if you fight this battle, with these ignorant violent dirtbag cops, you're going to die on this hill to no effect. Even AKA Stone, who is no fan of judicial overreach or lawlessness, is not going to be anywhere near these cops with their crazy actions. It's just nuts, what they did. Is that why you're fighting this so hard? States rights? Really? I think you're busting our chops.
He does verge into perversity on the subject of abusive police cases. Is it a psychiatric thing like his daddy spanked him bareass too often but he really loved daddy anyway? Is he just pulling our legs? If so, he's devoted a lot of time and effort to it and never convinced anyone to join his opinions. So it is mysterious. The payoff is so low you just have to wonder.
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?
Protections under the Constitution, my ass. Utah drivers consent to blood draws the moment they pick up their driver's license.
I can't find anything on them getting a blood sample from the lab, probably just a lame rumor. Sorry about that. Gosh. How does that ruling work in states where the drivers have already given their implied consent to blood/breath testing when they apply for a driver's license?
I visited the linked website and read your story from 10pm last night. Then at the bottom of the page, I noticed a newer story, dated today at 3pm. SLC detective who arrested nurse fired from part-time paramedic job A perfect employee record with the ambulance company for almost 35 years didn't save his part-time gig. Just imagine the legal issues after that statement he made about bringing them only transient homeless patients. That finishes him as an EMT, just from potential lawsuits down the road. You have to wonder how many arrests he's made over the years as a cop and how those are going to be re-examined in light of what he did to the nurse. I'm sure local defense attorneys will be preparing briefs for new trials, resentencing hearings, etc. He'll be portrayed successfully as a dirty cop.
I dunno. Isn't that every state in the Union? I assume they have a multistate compact to deal with drivers from out-of-state and all the legal issues that would arise as a result. But I don't have any info on that right now. The question arises somewhat in this case because the truck driver is from Idaho, not Utah. So how does Utah enforce its implied consent laws on residents of other states with the rules for driver interlock and such? Or seizing their license but giving them a 29-day temporary license, etc.? I don't recall reading about such cases but they must come up with some regularity.
The truck driver is a resident of Idaho. When did Idahoans ever consent to the laws of Utah by getting a license in Idaho? I suppose some pack of asshole judges will tell us it's the Commerce Clause again, the last refuge of scoundrels in black robes.
Because he is a dirty cop.
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.
I think it has to affect his employability as a cop. How can he ever testify again in court without the defense impeaching him as a cop willing to violate the rights of defendants, crime victims like the trucker, and any nearby nurses that stand in his way? Similarly, his past cases will be suspect as well. As will the cases handled by his supervisor who he claims ordered him to assault the nurse. Any case in which the primary evidence was his blood draw is suspect. It would be unreasonable to believe that this is the very first time he violated civil rights under the color of authority. I read that the nurse is also reconsidering her previous disclaiming of any intention to file a lawsuit. Apparently, the police cam videos made her much angrier about what happened.
"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.
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." Boom. Done.
I'm telling you that he has some kind of psychiatric fixation about authority figures. The Germans never loved Hitler as much as this guy loves cops. Especially bad cops. Maybe his mommy gave him lots of enemas when he was a young child.
"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.
"I'm here to do a blood draw." 41-6a-522. 522. 522. 522. Pe 522. Person incapable of refusal. Now get the fuck out of my way or I will have you arrested for obstructing an officer during an investigation. (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.
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."
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.
I have cited the law many times. I know you can read.
You can repeat your bogus claim ad nauseum and that still makes you wrong. In fact - no one else on the entire internet, cops, civilians, lawyers, judges agree with the bullshit you've posted. Doesn't that tell you something? Are you the only one in the entire world who is right and everyone else is wrong? Good luck with that. You don't know the law. You need a dose of ass kicking. You deserve it. Peon.
I want you to scream in pain.
Yep, that's how Payne played it. Now he's under criminal investigation, has lost one job, and will soon lose another, and may serve jail time. Your attitude is that of a violent criminal who commits violent crimes under color of authority. Payne is a criminal who got caught on camera. He abused authority, assaulted a woman and wrongfully detained her. He was egged on by his watch supervisor. So they're going to be punished as the criminals they are, crucified before the whole public as an example, and police forces around the country will adjust to the state of the law, and not commit this particular crime again.
What the law is, is decided by the political process, which is fundamentally democratic at its root. Payne and his supervisor managed to make themselves the poster children for police abuse, and they're going to be made examples of by the political, legal, judicial and media system. They cannot be successfully defended, and they won't be.
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.
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.
"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil, not criminal, penalties (ie., suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."
Utah is a state, an utterly subordinated tax-paying appendage of the United States of America. Utah has no power to enforce any law that the supreme authority over Utah - the federal government of the United States - speaking through the Supreme Court of the United States - says it cannot. Your Utah laws are mere playthings, void, null, old rules that no longer apply. The federal master has spoke, and the peasant state SHALL obey, or be compelled to by superior armed force that no state nor collection of states can resist. That is the American system since 1865, and we're not going to change it to save some little dick of a cop in Utah. You quote Utah law. It has no force in this case. Federal law is supreme, and the Supreme Court of the supreme law and supreme imperial authority in this land has spoken. Therefore, the state of Utah is UTTERLY ERASED in its will and its law, and it law is now reduced to lockstep obedience to the legal imperial master, who resides in Washington DC, not Salt Lake City. The victory of the federal government in the Civil War secured this outcome, and it is the supreme law of the land. It's fun saying this over and over, because you hate it and it's true. The fact that you hate it but have to submit to it makes me happy.
Wow. Pretty specific there. Then show me the Supreme Court ruling that says the State of Utah cannot enforce it's blood draw laws. You can't. The court ruled on a different matter that you're trying to apply to the State of Utah. Apples and oranges.
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
You can't. The court ruled on a different matter that you're trying to apply to the State of Utah. Apples and oranges. I don't have to do any of that. The presumption is on my side. You have to overcome it. Payne can't overcome it, so his life will be crushed.
My wows are directed to the way vicecount expresses himself.
You've hung out with us for 15 years or more. Surely you can't be that surprised that Vic has strong opinions and likes to be a little provocative in prose. I hope you aren't going to start whining like some SJW snowflake that they've discovered a neo-Confederate hiding under their bed or something.
BTW, don't be so sure that Darth Vader is so unpopular. They are removing the Robert E. Lee stained glass from the National Cathedral. But no one is trying to remove the Sith Lord gargoyle. Yep, Darth Vader is on the National Cathedral and has been for a long time now. To me, it's just another argument for razing that obscenity to the ground but most people probably like it. Long live the Empire! LOL
Comments (113 - 123) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhy is that difficult to parse? Breath tests, ok without a warrant because trivial. Blood tests: warrant required.
#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.
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
and that an "implied consent" law of some state is inferior to and cannot supersede the Supreme Court
#75. To: misterwhite (#74)
That stupid federalism and states rights is so passe. We need a one-size size-fits-all federal government.
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
(Edited)
But he is so very dogged about this that his determination on the matter interests me.
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
There's no reasonable read of the law that gets us to where he is.
#78. To: Vicomte13 (#75)
and protections under the Constitution,
#79. To: Tooconservative (#63)
Gold Cross Ambulance places detective on administrative leave after controversial nurse arrest
#80. To: Tooconservative (#67)
#81. To: hondo68, Vicomte13, misterwhite, nolu chan, A K A Stone, kenh, redleghunter (#79)
(Edited)
Gold Cross Ambulance places detective on administrative leave after controversial nurse arrest
“Gold Cross Ambulance in Salt Lake City, Utah has terminated Jeff Payne as a part-time Paramedic effective immediately. Although Jeff was not working for Gold Cross Ambulance at the time of the incident, we take his inappropriate remarks regarding patient transports seriously,” the emergency medical transport company said in a statement released Tuesday. “We acknowledge those concerned individuals who have contacted us regarding this incident and affirm our commitment to serving all members of the community with kindness and respect. We will continue to maintain our values of outstanding patient focused care, safety, and the complete trust of the communities we serve.”
#82. To: misterwhite (#80)
Gosh. How does that ruling work in states where the drivers have already given their implied consent to blood/breath testing when they apply for a driver's license?
#83. To: misterwhite (#78)
Protections under the Constitution, my ass. Utah drivers consent to blood draws the moment they pick up their driver's license.
#84. To: Tooconservative (#81)
He'll be portrayed successfully as a dirty cop.
#85. To: misterwhite (#77)
(Edited)
Does this confuse you or is it pretty straightforward?
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
#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.
#88. To: misterwhite (#87)
"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
So we are to override everything, abuse and arrest nurses,
"Fine. He's in Room 4."
#90. To: Vicomte13 (#88)
#91. To: misterwhite (#89)
It needn't be that way. The cop said it was the first time it had gone this far.
#92. To: Vicomte13 (#91)
"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:
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.
#93. To: misterwhite (#92)
(Screams follow)
#94. To: Tooconservative (#93)
No state law can overrule the USSC.
#95. To: misterwhite (#94)
"Utah’s implied consent law only imposes civil penalties (such as suspension of driver’s license) and thus is constitutional."
#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?
#97. To: misterwhite (#94)
The USSC ruled on "A" and the State of Utah is doing "B".
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#98. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#96)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#99. To: misterwhite (#96)
#100. To: misterwhite (#92)
#101. To: misterwhite (#92)
Now get the fuck out of my way or I will have you arrested for obstructing an officer during an investigation.
#102. To: Deckard (#97)
Good luck with that.
#103. To: misterwhite (#96)
(Edited)
I have cited the law many times. I know you can read.
#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.
#105. To: Vicomte13 (#103)
"Blah, blah, blah ..."
#106. To: misterwhite (#105)
#107. To: Vicomte13 (#106)
Utah has no power to enforce any law that the supreme authority over Utah - the federal government of the United States - speaking through the Supreme Court of the United States - says it cannot.
#108. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#104)
Wow, wow, wow.
#109. To: misterwhite (#107)
Wow. Pretty specific there. Then show me the Supreme Court ruling that says the State of Utah cannot enforce it's blood draw laws.
#110. To: Tooconservative (#108)
#111. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#110)
#112. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#110)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]