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

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Salt Lake County DA requests FBI assistance in Nurse Alex Wubbels investigation Source: Fox 13 Now URL Source: http://fox13now.com/2017/09/07/salt ... se-alex-wubbels-investigation/ Published: Sep 7, 2017 Author: Mark Green Post Date: 2017-09-07 18:28:30 by kenh Keywords: None Views: 20507 Comments: 105 SALT LAKE CITY — Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill has requested the FBI’s assistance in the investigation into the arrest of a Utah nurse who refused to allow a blood draw from an unconscious patient without following proper procedure. In a statement released Thursday, Gill said his office officially requested the FBI investigate: “any and all individuals involved in the chain of conduct arising from the incident at the University of Utah Hospital on July 26, 2017 for any Civil Rights Violations under the color of authority.” Gill said he requested the FBI’s help due to events beyond a mere criminal investigation. Click for Full Text! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 96. #9. To: kenh, nolu chan, Vicomte13, Pinguinite, misterwhite, misterwhite, paging misterwhite... (#0) (Edited) Since you posted your Fox13 article, the Salt Lake Tribune pushed out their top headline in the last hour. I decided to tack it on to your thread instead of starting a new one. Salt Lake district attorney asks FBI to investigate confrontation between cop and nurse for potential civil-rights violations The Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office, as part of its review of the circumstances of the arrest of a University Hospital nurse by a Salt Lake City police officer, has asked the FBI to investigate the case for any potential civil rights violations. On July 26, SLCPD Detective Jeff Payne arrested nurse Alex Wubbels during a dispute over getting blood without a warrant from the unconscious victim of a fiery crash. An FBI news release issued Thursday said the bureau has agreed to provide assistance and already had been looking into possible federal law violations. “The FBI opened a civil rights/color of law review of the matter when we found out about it in the media,” the release says. Color of law crimes are acts done by officials — such as use of excessive force or police misconduct — that go beyond their lawful authority and willfully deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law. District Attorney Sim Gill announced last week he wanted a criminal investigation into the episode, and Salt Lake City officials said the Unified Police Department would conduct the probe. On Thursday, he said the investigation into possible violations of state law will continue. “This is really to be thorough,” Gill said of his request to FBI Special Agent Eric Barnhart, who heads the bureau’s Salt Lake City Division. Gill said in a news release he is asking “our federal law enforcement partners to fully vet issues only they can investigate.” He said the decision to request assistance was made over the Labor Day weekend and a formal letter was sent to Barnhart on Wednesday. “The District Attorney’s office has received multiple inquires and communications concerning the incident,” Gill added in the release. “We ask the community and our citizens to be patient. We assure them that this issue is of the utmost concern for us and we are committed to assuring a thorough, fair gathering and review of evidence, facts and issues.” The letter asks the FBI “to examine and consider whether actions by Det. Payne, other police officers and law enforcement personnel and anyone else acting under the color of authority constitutes criminal conduct, criminal civil rights violations, or other violations of law.” Gill’s letter adds: “It is essential that all individuals and institutions associated with this incident should be investigated to document the roles they played in the incident to prevent such a thing from happening again. Our community and its citizens deserve nothing less.” Payne has been placed on administrative leave and also is the subject of a police internal affairs investigation and a civilian review board. I knew it had to be civil rights if they brought the FBI in. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-07   19:35:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Tooconservative (#9) Salt Lake district attorney asks FBI to investigate confrontation between cop and nurse for potential civil-rights violations What?? He was acting under departmental procedure and the State of Utah law as written. She obstructed and then resisted arrest. This is insane. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-08   9:43:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: misterwhite, Toooconservative, Pinguinite (#26) [Pinguinite #23] In the case of Wubbels, it appears she is a TRUE public servant and at least hesitant to file any civil lawsuit over the event, instead choosing the high road of using her experience to make the world a better place. I agree with that assessment, but it may inevitably go beyond Wubbels to a class action. The extent of the violation is not yet clear. The FBI was not called in for help with one misdeed by one cop. [misterwhite #25] He was acting under departmental procedure and the State of Utah law as written. She obstructed and then resisted arrest. This is insane. He was acting unlawfully in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent which had struck down, as null and void, all State laws and regulations or procedures repugnant to that precedential opinion. The officer's actions were unconstitutional and resort to null and void law, regulations or procedures offer no help to make his actions lawful. A directive from his lieutenant may mitigate his problems, but amplify the problems of the municipality of Salt Lake City. In addition, the officer's demands appear clearly in violation of HIIPA laws. If this has occured in multiple past cases, SLC could be facing a class action civil suit, appeals of criminal convictions, and more criminal complaints. Recall that TWO officers have been placed on administrative leave. Officer Payne did the arrest. Lieutenant Anonymous apparently called for the arrest. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/02/utah-cop-put-on-leave-after-bodycam-video-shows-him-cuffing-nurse-for-refusing-to-draw-blood-on-unconscious-patient.html 2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest September 2, 2017 Fox News Another cop was placed on administrative leave with pay in the handcuffing of a Utah hospital nurse who refused to take blood from an unconscious patient. Salt Lake City’s mayor and police chief apologized Friday to Utah Hospital nurse, Alex Wubbels, who is seen in body cam video screaming “help me” after Detective Jeff Payne handcuffed and dragged her out of the hospital over her refusal to take the blood sample from the patient, a car-crash victim, on July 26. The video has caused outrage since it was released Thursday. Payne was placed on paid leave and prosecutors on Friday announced a a criminal investigation. Police said Friday a second officer was also placed on paid leave. That officer has not been formally identified, but officials have said they also were reviewing the conduct of Payne's boss, a lieutenant who reportedly called for the arrest if Wubbels kept interfering. [snip] nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-08   15:19:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: nolu chan (#36) Recall that TWO officers have been placed on administrative leave (with pay). Isn't that standard in these types of cases? Or do you read something sinister into it? "The FBI was not called in for help with one misdeed by one cop." It's possible they're simply investigating a federal violation of her civil rights. Or it could be Russian interference. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-08   16:10:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: misterwhite (#38) Isn't that standard in these types of cases? Or do you read something sinister into it? Did you happen to notice one is a Lieutenant? Read: Salt Lake City liability. They could be investigating Keckistan, but I doubt it. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-08   20:55:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: nolu chan (#39) Did you happen to notice one is a Lieutenant? Read: Salt Lake City liability. So they BOTH thought the law and police department policy were on their side. WTF is going on here? Why are these two being blamed for acting within accepted protocol? FIRE THEM!! TAKE THEIR HOUSES!! THROW THEM IN JAIL!! That's what I'm reading. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-09   9:13:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: misterwhite (#42) So they BOTH thought the law and police department policy were on their side. WTF is going on here? Why are these two being blamed for acting within accepted protocol? A jackass in power "authorizing" an unconstitutional act does not make it constitutional. It just leads to a criminal act. Deputy Dawg can always say he was just following orders, as that excuse has always worked well in the past. If SLC wants to accept that unconstitutional searches were accepted protocol, then they should get ready to open their wallet very wide. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-09   16:08:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: nolu chan (#46) A jackass in power "authorizing" an unconstitutional act does not make it constitutional. Then shouldn't that jackass be blamed? And we're not talking about some isolated "act". This is Utah law and police department policy that's been used many times before without a problem. "If SLC wants to accept that unconstitutional searches were accepted protocol, then they should get ready to open their wallet very wide." Why SLC? Why not the State of Utah? It's their statute. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-09   17:52:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: misterwhite (#47) Why SLC? hy not the State of Utah? It's their statute. The Utah statute is legal and constitutional. The brain dead misreading of the statute by the SLC lieutenant, the detective, and yourself yields an unconstitutional, criminal result. And, of course, massive liability for Salt Lake City who employs those two blockheads. SLC should consider hiring the nurse to babysit them. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-09   20:21:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: nolu chan (#48) The brain dead misreading of the statute by the SLC lieutenant, the detective, and yourself yields an unconstitutional, criminal result. And, of course, massive liability for Salt Lake City who employs those two blockheads. SLC should consider hiring the nurse to babysit them. You have to wonder why they went so far over the line for an accident that occurred in Logan, UT, 81 miles outside their jurisdiction. Their only involvement was trying to get blood for Logan (or UHP in my conspiracy theory). I can't really imagine how or why they went so far in this case when it wasn't even their case to begin with. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-10   9:30:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: Tooconservative (#49) :You have to wonder why they went so far over the line for an accident that occurred in Logan ..." You still gnawin' on that old bone? misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-10   10:41:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: misterwhite (#50) You still gnawin' on that old bone? You mean the old bone that an SLC detective and his supervisor violated a nurse's rights and placed her under false arrest while trying to violate an accident victim's 4th Amendment rights, all for an accident that didn't occur in SLC jurisdiction and when the there was no probable cause that the victim was an impaired driver? Yes, that "old bone" is going to jump up and bite an SLC detective and his supervisor in the ass, real hard. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-10   11:09:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: Tooconservative (#55) You mean the old bone that an SLC detective and his supervisor violated a nurse's rights and placed her under false arrest while trying to violate an accident victim's 4th Amendment rights, all for an accident that didn't occur in SLC jurisdiction and when the there was no probable cause that the victim was an impaired driver? No. Your relentless pursuit of why things happened the way they did. It could be that police departmental policy is that any vehicular accident involving a fatality gives probable cause to draw blood from an unconscious or dead driver. Perhaps that's the policy that's now changed. Can't blame the cop for that. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-10   11:27:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: misterwhite (#56) It could be that police departmental policy is that any vehicular accident involving a fatality gives probable cause to draw blood from an unconscious or dead driver. Perhaps that's the policy that's now changed. You're just making shit up out of thin air. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-10   13:05:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: Tooconservative (#58) You're just making shit up out of thin air. I'm stating possibilities, using words like "could be" and "perhaps". You're the one making shit up with your "the detective and his supervisor violated a nurse's rights" and "placed her under false arrest" and "while trying to violate an accident victim's 4th Amendment rights" and "when the there was no probable cause that the victim was an impaired driver". What's your plan -- to apologize later when the truth comes out or temporarily disappear from the forum? misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-10   17:42:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: misterwhite (#59) We'll see how it turns out. I say the nurse wins, pretty much across the board. Including if she files a lawsuit for a fat settlement from SLC PD. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-10   17:50:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: Tooconservative (#60) I say the nurse wins, pretty much across the board. Including if she files a lawsuit for a fat settlement from SLC PD. Not if it goes to court. Not if we abide by the rule of law. Not if we instituted loser pays. But *sigh*, none of that will happen. The police department and the city will cave under political correctness and social pressure which people like you will incorrectly interpret as an admission of malfeasance rather than what it really is -- a bribe to just shut up and go away. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-10   18:03:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: misterwhite (#61) They'll cave because their city attorney will tell them they're going to lose badly on the merits. They don't pay out of fear of the public backlash. So they'll settle out of court, assuming the nurse decides to sue. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-10   19:58:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Tooconservative (#62) They'll cave because their city attorney will tell them they're going to lose badly on the merits. Merits schmerits. They might lose on the optics or on the emotional aspects, but legal merits? No. I'm sure the police department will be able to point to dozens of prior instances where they drew blood without incident. They can point to state law. They can point to departmental policy. Both Detective Jeff Payne and his supervisor believed they were operating within legal parameters, even to the point where Payne's supervisor ordered the nurse arrested for obstruction. The nurse didn't have the legal power to obstruct a police investigation. She exceeded her authority. For that she was briefly arrested. Briefly. Had SHE not resisted that arrest, things would have gone smoothly. Afterwards, things could have been straightened out. If the state and the city and the police department and the supervisor and the detective were all wrong, the blood evidence couldn't be used at trial -- assuming there ever was one. Keep in mind, that is the intent of fourth amendment protections -- to prevent evidence being used against you in a court of law. Plenty of time to sort this out. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-11   9:38:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#63) I'm sure the police department will be able to point to dozens of prior instances where they drew blood without incident. They can point to state law. They can point to departmental policy. Both Detective Jeff Payne and his supervisor believed they were operating within legal parameters, even to the point where Payne's supervisor ordered the nurse arrested for obstruction. The fact is, you are absolutely clueless about you are talking about. Missouri v. McNeely, S. Ct. 11-1425, 569 U.S. ____ (17 Apr 2013) [footnotes omitted] At 2: (Syllabus) (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. _, _. [nc] You have admitted there is no claimed exception of exigent circumstances. Thus, the principal applies that the proposed 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, required a search warrant. Read it until you understand it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 4-11: (Opinion of the Court) II A The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Our cases have held 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 (1973). That principle applies to the type of search at issue in this case, which involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely’s skin and into his veins to obtain a sample of his blood for use as evidence in a criminal investigation. Such an invasion of bodily integrity implicates an individual’s [*5] “most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.” Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 760 (1985); see also Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 616 (1989). We first considered the Fourth Amendment restrictions on such searches in Schmerber, where, as in this case, a blood sample was drawn from a defendant suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol. 384 U. S., at 758. Noting that “[s]earch warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings,” we reasoned that “absent an emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned,” even when the search was conducted following a lawful arrest. Id., at 770. We explained that the importance of requiring authorization by a “‘neutral and detached magistrate’” before allowing a law enforcement officer to “invade another’s body in search of evidence of guilt is indisputable and great.” Ibid. (quoting Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 13–14 (1948)). As noted, the warrant requirement is subject to exceptions. “One well-recognized exception,” and the one at issue in this case, “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). A variety of circumstances may give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including law enforcement’s need to provide emergency assistance to an occupant of a home, Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U. S. 45, 47–48 (2009) (per curiam), engage in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect, United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38, 42–43 (1976), or enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause, Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 509–510 (1978). As is relevant here, we have also recognized that in some circumstances law enforcement officers may conduct a search without a [*6] warrant to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. See Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 40–41 (1963) (plurality opinion). While these contexts do not necessarily involve equivalent dangers, in each a warrantless search is potentially reasonable because “there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” Tyler, 436 U. S., at 509. [nc] In the instant case there was time to get a warrant. The detective did not even try. To determine whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, this Court looks to the totality of circumstances. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 406 (2006) (finding officers’ entry into a home to provide emergency assistance “plainly reasonable under the circumstances”); Illinois v. Mc-Arthur, 531 U. S. 326, 331 (2001) (concluding that a warrantless seizure of a person to prevent him from returning to his trailer to destroy hidden contraband was reasonable “[i]n the circumstances of the case before us” due to exigency); Cupp, 412 U. S., at 296 (holding that a limited warrantless search of a suspect’s fingernails to preserve evidence that the suspect was trying to rub off was justified “[o]n the facts of this case”); see also Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 391–396 (1997) (rejecting a per se exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for felony drug investigations based on presumed exigency, and requiring instead evaluation of police conduct “in a particular case”). We apply this “finely tuned approach”to Fourth Amendment reasonableness in this context because the police action at issue lacks “the traditional justification that . . . a warrant . . . provides.” Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318, 347, n. 16 (2001). Absent that established justification, “the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry,” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 39 (1996), demands that we evaluate each case of alleged exigency based “on its own facts and circumstances.” Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 [*7] (1931). Our decision in Schmerber applied this totality of the circumstances approach. In that case, the petitioner had suffered injuries in an automobile accident and was taken to the hospital. 384 U. S., at 758. While he was there receiving treatment, a police officer arrested the petitioner for driving while under the influence of alcohol and ordered a blood test over his objection. Id., at 758–759. After explaining that the warrant requirement applied generally to searches that intrude into the human body, we concluded that the warrantless blood test “in the present case” was nonetheless permissible because 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 (quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964)). In support of that conclusion, we observed that evidence could have been lost because “the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, as the body functions to eliminate it from the system.” 384 U. S., at 770. We added that “[p]articularly in a case such as this, where time had to be taken to bring the accused to a hospital and to investigate the scene of the accident, there was no time to seek out a magistrate and secure a warrant.” Id., at 770–771. “Given these special facts,” we found that it was appropriate for the police to [*8] act without a warrant. Id., at 771. We further held that the blood test at issue was a reasonable way to recover the evidence because it was highly effective, “involve[d] virtually no risk, trauma, or pain,” and was conducted in a reasonable fashion “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” Ibid. And in conclusion, we noted that our judgment that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation was strictly based“on the facts of the present record.” Id., at 772. Thus, our analysis in Schmerber fits comfortably within our case law applying the exigent circumstances exception. In finding the warrantless blood test reasonable in Schmerber, we considered all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and carefully based our holding on those specific facts. B The State properly recognizes that the reasonableness of a warrantless search under the exigency exception to the warrant requirement must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. Brief for Petitioner 28–29. But the State nevertheless seeks a per se rule for blood testing in drunk-driving cases. The State contends that whenever an officer has probable cause to believe an individual has been driving under the influence of alcohol, exigent circumstances will necessarily exist because BAC evidence is inherently evanescent. As a result, the State claims that so long as the officer has probable cause and the blood test is conducted in a reasonable manner, it is categorically reasonable for law enforcement to obtain the blood sample without a warrant. It is true that as a result of the human body’s natural metabolic processes, the alcohol level in a person’s blood begins to dissipate once the alcohol is fully absorbed and continues to decline until the alcohol is eliminated. See Skinner, 489 U. S., at 623; Schmerber, 384 U. S., at 770– [*9] 771. Testimony before the trial court in this case indicated that the percentage of alcohol in an individual’s blood typically decreases by approximately 0.015 percent to 0.02 percent per hour once the alcohol has been fully absorbed. App. 47. More precise calculations of the rate at which alcohol dissipates depend on various individual characteristics (such as weight, gender, and alcohol tolerance) and the circumstances in which the alcohol was consumed. See Stripp, Forensic and Clinical Issues in Alcohol Analysis, in Forensic Chemistry Handbook 437–441 (L. Kobilinsky ed. 2012). Regardless of the exact elimination rate, it is sufficient for our purposes to note that because an individual’s alcohol level gradually declines soon after he stops drinking, a significant delay in testing will negatively affect the probative value of the results. This fact was essential to our holding in Schmerber, as we recognized that, under the circumstances, further delay in order to secure a warrant after the time spent investigating the scene of the accident and transporting the injured suspect to the hospital to receive treatment would have threatened the destruction of evidence. 384 U. S., at 770–771. But it does not follow that we should depart from careful case-by-case assessment of exigency and adopt the categorical rule proposed by the State and its amici. In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be 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 (1948) (“We cannot . . . excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made [the search] imperative”). We do not doubt that some circumstances will make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream will support an exigency justifying a properly [*10] conducted warrantless blood test. That, however, is a reason to decide each case on its facts, as we did in Schmerber, not to accept the “considerable overgeneralization” that a per se rule would reflect. Richards, 520 U. S., at 393. The context of blood testing is different in critical respects from other destruction-of-evidence cases in which the police are truly confronted with a “‘now or never’” situation. Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U. S. 496, 505 (1973). In contrast to, for example, circumstances in which the suspect has control over easily disposable evidence, see Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103, 116, n. 6 (2006); Cupp, 412 U. S., at 296, BAC evidence from a drunk driving suspect naturally dissipates over time in a gradual and relatively predictable manner. Moreover, because a police officer must typically transport a drunk-driving suspect to a medical facility and obtain the assistance of someone with appropriate medical training before conducting a blood test, some delay between the time of the arrest or accident and the time of the test is inevitable regardless of whether police officers are required to obtain a warrant. See State v. Shriner, 751 N. W. 2d 538, 554 (Minn. 2008) (Meyer, J., dissenting). This reality undermines the force of the State’s contention, endorsed by the dissent, see post, at 3 (opinion of THOMAS, J.), that we should recognize a categorical exception to the warrant requirement because BAC evidence “is actively being destroyed with every minute that passes.” Brief for Petitioner 27. Consider, for example, a situation in which the warrant process will not significantly increase the delay before the blood test is conducted because an officer can take steps to secure a warrant while the suspect is being transported to a medical facility by another officer. In such a circumstance, there would be no plausible justification for an exception to the warrant requirement. The State’s proposed per se rule also fails to account for [*11] 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 offered to establish probable cause is simple. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended in 1977 to permit federal magistrate judges to issue a warrant based on sworn testimony communicated by telephone. See 91 Stat. 319. As amended, the law now allows a federal magistrate judge to consider “information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 4.1. States have also innovated. Well over a majority of States allow police officers or prosecutors to apply for search warrants remotely through various means, including telephonic or radio communication, electronic communication such as e-mail, and video conferencing. Schmerber is deprecated by McNeely and technology. Clearly noted is, In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. And, The State’s proposed per se rule also fails to account for [*11] 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 offered to establish probable cause is simple. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-11   22:15:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: nolu chan (#74) You have admitted there is no claimed exception of exigent circumstances. Correct. But the court ruled that, "One recognized exception "applies when '''the exigencies of the situation" ..." Gosh. That implies there are others, doesn't it? Otherwise the court would have ruled, "The only recognized exception "applies when '''the exigencies of the situation" ..." But they didn't. You're acting as though they did. Tell me who's "clueless". misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-12   10:38:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: misterwhite (#77) Correct. But the court ruled that, "One recognized exception "applies when '''the exigencies of the situation" ..." You do realize that your quote appears nowhere in the opinion of the court and does not constitute a ruling of the court on anything? All you have proved is that you do not know how to read a court opinion. nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-12   17:36:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: nolu chan (#89) You do realize that your quote appears nowhere in the opinion of the court and does not constitute a ruling of the court on anything? Sure it does. "As noted, the warrant requirement is subject to exceptions. “One well-recognized exception,” and the one at issue in this case, “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/11-1425/opinion3.html What this shows is that you are clueless. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-12   21:34:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#93) (Edited) I was reading a Townhall ICYMI catchup piece on this incident and noticed this: The patient was the victim of a head on car crash, instigated by a high speed police pursuit against department policy— Owen Barcala (@obarcala) September 2, 2017 I have no idea who he is or if he knows what he is talking about (his Twitter profile sez: "MA environment/energy litigator. Trials, appeals, plaintiff, defense, you name it."). But it would be interesting to know if Utah Highway Patrol does have an express policy against high-speed pursuits like the one in which the perp crashed into the trucker. Lots of PDs do have such a policy, especially in metro areas. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of a state's highway patrol having such a policy. Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-12   21:41:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 96. #99. To: Tooconservative (#96) I have no idea who he is or if he knows what he is talking about He doesn't. He's an asshole. misterwhite  posted on  2017-09-12 21:50:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 96. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com