Why did the psycho cop insist on a blood draw in the first place? The unconscious man was that way because of the police chase that caused the driver of the car being chased to slam into his pick-up truck.

Obviously, if the cop could have gotten a warrant, then he probably would have, but he likely would have failed to do so as the driver committed no infraction related to the crash.

It is a good question though which begs an answer. The victim was, in fact, a part time cop himself. I do not see how it is possible the blood draw could have helped the victim, contrary to the officer's claim, as it could only yield evidence that could hurt him, not help him (I.e. if it turned out that in spite of not committing any driving infraction contributing to the crash, he could have been on drugs or alcohol). Perhaps the cop knew the victim and had some sinister motive. Perhaps, as you speculate, the cop did something to cause the crash and wanted to incriminate the victim somehow, perhaps by tainting the blood sample he wanted in his possession. But clearly there was no legit reason to require the blood draw, and the hospital policy for refusing it reflected that lack of legitimate need.

The only possible reason for the badged prick to demand a blood test would be to try and "get" the victim of the accident on some charge in order to cover his own ass just in case his car chase was not "by the book"

Yes. This question should be part of the investigation, of course.

The cop was trained in drawing blood. The nurse was trying to prevent him from doing so. She was wrong. The cop was right.

You contradict the fox news article which clearly states the cop wanted the hospital to do the blood draw.

Put me in charge and

We appreciate the offer to volunteer, but...... no thank you!

As is made clear, consent is a non-issue if the cop arrested the nurse for not drawing the blood. Unless you can show a law requiring licensed medical staff to draw blood of third parties upon police demand.

She was wrong. The cop was right.

Oh, FU if you're not just trolling every single day. Or even if you are.

She needs to take this psycho asshole's house, car, pension, TV - everything. Don't steal from the taxpayers for this pig's arrogant violence.

You contradict the fox news article which clearly states the cop wanted the hospital to do the blood draw.

You contradict the Salt Lake Tribune headline which clearly states:

"Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being dragged into police car after refusing to let officer take blood from unconscious victim"

Oh, FU if you're not just trolling every single day. Or even if you are.

I stated the facts and the law. What you got? Feelings and emotion. F**k you.

It is a good question though which begs an answer.

Why? It's department policy. They don't need your approval. And they certainly don't need to justify it to you.

You contradict the Salt Lake Tribune headline which clearly states:

"Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being dragged into police car after refusing to let officer take blood from unconscious victim"

Not necessarily. The officer clearly wanted to take the blood and stated as much (he would leave with either blood or body, I think it was). But the SLTrib article does not say who would do the actual blood drawing.

Why? It's department policy. They don't need your approval. And they certainly don't need to justify it to you.

Please try not to be too stupid. It's all part of an investigation.

If Utah police set up a checkpoint stopping all motorists and doing a blood draw, right on the highway, then the question of why would still be important.

By your way of thinking, cops could legally, without any question whatsover, set up such check points every 1/2 mile on a 100 mile interstate, resulting in the death of all drivers due to loss of blood / shock perhaps by no more than about the 80 mile marker.

No, such a police tactic would be above and beyond the question of any American citizens, because it's "the law".

But the SLTrib article does not say who would do the actual blood drawing.

So it was just a coincidence that he was at the hospital and he was trained in taking blood?

Are you being this dense on purpose?

then the question of why would still be important.

That implies the answer to that question is then subject to your approval. It's not. So why ask it? To get into an argument with the cops?

But the SLTrib article does not say who would do the actual blood drawing.

"to let officer take blood from unconscious victim".

So you think that could mean he wanted the nurse to draw the blood, then place the vial of blood in the unconscious victim's hand, whereupon the cop would then take blood from the victim.

That's how you read the headline? Why do you insist on making yourself look so incredibly stupid?

The Fox news article, to which the AP contributed, does explicitly say the hospital staff was to draw.

And the cop is on admin leave, which was a decision made by me.

Just kidding, but you can have some fun with that I'm sure.

By your way of thinking, cops could legally, without any question whatsover, set up such check points every 1/2 mile on a 100 mile interstate, resulting in the death of all drivers due to loss of blood / shock perhaps by no more than about the 80 mile marker.

Because they can, you assume they would?

Congress can set your taxes at 100%. Gosh, if they did that you'd have no money. Let's worry ourselves to death about that, too.

The Fox news article, to which the AP contributed, does explicitly say the hospital staff was to draw.

Round and round we go. The Salt Lake Tribune -- a local paper with local reporters -- did explicitly say that the nurse refused to let the officer take blood from unconscious victim. The officer went to the hospital get blood, was trained to draw blood, and was legally allowed to do so.

If the hospital had a policy of not drawing blood for any reason, then he, by law, was allowed to do so himself.

Because they can, you assume they would?

Well, since you already established that taking blood from any driver at any time can be done for any reason or no reason whatsoever, then if they were to do as I theorized, then no one has any standing to question it.

And you'd say it's okay because of the implied consent law.

I get it. The law does not serve the people. The people serve the law. That's why people exist. And if a choice needs to be made of an innocent person dying or the law broken, then the innocent person needs to die. That's how you think. I understand that now.

If the hospital had a policy of not drawing blood for any reason, then he, by law, was allowed to do so himself.

In which case, he did obtain the blood draw after arresting the obstructing nurse?

Or did that not happen?

And the cop is on admin leave, which was a decision made by me.

He's on admin leave for bullshit, politically correct reasons because his linquini-spined supervisors decided to kiss the hospital's ass rather than educate the hospital staff on state law.

If the hospital had a policy of not drawing blood for any reason, then he, by law, was allowed to do so himself.

But instead, the pig decides to arrest her for not submitting to being his slave against policies she's just read to the pig.

She needs to take all his stuff, keep what she likes, sell what she can and burn the remainder on the front lawn of his new tenement shack.

politically correct reasons

You are sounding like a government salesman pitching for fascism.

then no one has any standing to question it.

They can question it, complain about it, challenge it -- at the appropriate time to the appropriate people.

The nurse and her supervisor chose to question it at the wrong time with the wrong person. Furthermore, they went beyond questioning it and actually interfered based on the mistaken belief that they were in the right.

You are sounding like a government salesman pitching for fascism.

No. That's what you hear.

In which case, he did obtain the blood draw after arresting the obstructing nurse?

I assume so. The article doesn't say. Is that important? Does it change any of the facts I cited? Does it change the law?

But instead, the pig decides to arrest her for not submitting to being his slave against policies she's just read to the pig.

She was not allowing him to do his lawful duty. His supervisor authorized him to arrest her if she interfered. That's what he did.

He's on admin leave for bullshit, politically correct reasons because his linquini-spined supervisors decided to kiss the hospital's ass rather than educate the hospital staff on state law.

If so, it may be because of the absolute enormity of backlash they are receiving as this video has gone viral with near universal condemnation from the general public.

Imagine that.... a police department actually caving to the will of the people instead of, if you are right, the law. Such a travesty.

Remember what I said about people being much more motivated by emotions rather than cold logic? Well, that video is an absolute killer. And of course it doesn't help the cop at all that the nurse was shown being very logical.

They can question it, complain about it, challenge it -- at the appropriate time to the appropriate people.

Sure they can. After the fact, of course. In this case, after a lot of people end up dead from blood loss. That's the appropriate time to question things "properly".

I assume so. The article doesn't say. Is that important?

As far as the question of who was to do the blood draw, it sure is.

If he didn't do the draw himself, then it shows that he likely arrested her for not doing as he ordered, and not for obstructing his efforts to draw it himself.

So yes, very important.

that the nurse was shown being very logical.

So that's the key? Logic?

So if I can logically explain the cop why I was breaking the law by doing 90 in a 45, he'll let me go? And if he doesn't, I can take my case to the Internet to put pressure on the entire department?

So if I can logically explain the cop why I was breaking the law by doing 90 in a 45, he'll let me go? And if he doesn't, I can take my case to the Internet to put pressure on the entire department?

You can try, but I don't think you'll be nearly as successful as this nurse was.

then it shows that he likely arrested her for not doing as he ordered, and not for obstructing his efforts to draw it himself.

Suppose after the first nurse was taken away in handcuffs a second nurse came forward and volunteered to do the blood draw.

So to answer your question, I would say that the blood was eventually drawn by another nurse. How can you possibly conclude anything by that?

You can try, but I don't think you'll be nearly as successful as this nurse was.

So basically you're saying that the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public.

That "Rule of Law" stuff is so yesterday.

She needs to take this psycho asshole's house, car, pension, TV - everything.

Oh noes. Not de big screen tee-bee!

So to answer your question, I would say that the blood was eventually drawn by another nurse. How can you possibly conclude anything by that?

In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse.

If the nurse was obstructing as you claim, then after doing the arrest, he would be free to then conduct the blood draw himself.

But if he did not obtain any blood draw that day, then it implies that the nurse was ordered by the cop to do the draw but did not do so, and that would likely mean the nurse was not arrested for obstructing the cop from doing it himself, but merely not doing something he ordered, and that makes a big legal difference in the justification, or lack thereof, for the arrest.

The SLTrib article does not explicitly say who was to draw the blood.

It does not matter at all who was going to draw the blood. As a matter of policy, the hospital would not allow non-staffers to draw blood.

As to the larger legal question, the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person from the moment they admitted the patient. They have custodial legal obligations by law in every state.

If the cop was some kind of police phlebotomist or something, he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.

So basically you're saying that the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public.

That "Rule of Law" stuff is so yesterday.

As I predicted, your defense of the cop in this case has proven extremely entertaining. Thanks for playing.

As to the larger legal question, the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person from the moment they admitted the patient. They have custodial legal obligations by law in every state.

A very reasonable and believable position. If true, and the cop did want to do it himself but was prevented by the staff, then it would be the cop in violation of law, not withstanding any laws related to implied consent by drivers.

If the cop was some kind of police phlebotomist or something, he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.

True, but a moot point as to the question of the reason for his arresting her.

I think it most likely that the cop was demanding the staff do the draw and give him the samples, and was not asking for access to do it himself. I mean, heck, it's a hospital. When you are in a hospital and want something like a blood draw done, one would typically ask a nurse to do it. Prior to the dispute arising, it would be most reasonable for the cop wanting a blood sample to ask the hospital staff to provide one and that he had every expectation of it being provided to him. Even if he was trained, it's not his primary field so that is what a reasonable person would do. Plus there is the matter of sterility. A cop walking into an ER has all his gear all over him, and was presumably at the scene of the accident, so it would not be prudent for staff to allow that under normal circumstances anyway.

It is most likely then that the cop wanted the staff to draw the blood and did not attempt to do it himself, at least prior to the arrest.

In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse.

I think the bigger question is why the cop was demanding a blood draw from a victim who was grievously injured as a result of a high-speed police chase.

I think he was hoping to find something in the guy's blood, like a low alcohol level or some prescription or illicit drug that might be claimed to have impaired his driving ability.

I think the trooper was collecting blood as a lawfare method, to try to get anything on that driver so they could try to defend against a lawsuit after the cops chased this guy into a head-on crash with him.

The circumstances and length of the chase could make a big difference if the victim sues the cops. This legal status of high-speed chases is full of controversy and a lot of lawsuits in various states, CA in particular, some others in FL. Various cities and states have passed laws to try to regulate when and how a high-speed police chase is allowable due to the substantial danger that the perp will crash disastrously into a bystander or another vehicle, exactly as happened here.

We need to know a lot more about that police chase and hear why this cop was so determined to collect that blood. And who ordered him to do it and why.

I think the trooper was collecting blood as a lawfare method, to try to get anything on that driver so they could try to defend against a lawsuit after the cops chased this guy into a head-on crash with him.

Deckard and I both speculated on this exact point previously. It's not out of the question the cop could have intended to taint the blood samples on his way to the lab, if he was outright crooked. Normally such speculation would be groundless, but given the arrest response was so extreme, such mal intent would set the stage for the harsh response.

The circumstances and length of the chase could make a big difference if the victim sues the cops. This legal status of high-speed chases is full of controversy and a lot of lawsuits in various states, CA in particular, some others in FL. Various cities and states have passed laws to try to regulate when and how a high-speed police chase is allowable due to the substantial danger that the perp will crash disastrously into a bystander or another vehicle, exactly as happened here.

I think I read once the rule is to not engage in pursuit if the danger the pursuit poses to the public exceeded the danger to the public of not immediately capturing the suspect.

We need to know a lot more about that police chase and hear why this cop was so determined to collect that blood. And who ordered him to do it and why.

Such questions are moot and pointless in conducting the investigation.

According to misterwhite.

According to misterwhite.

He's the biggest a-hole on the Internet.

She was wrong. The cop was right.

Nope, on hospital property, with the patient in hospital custody. The cop has no right to do any blood drawing there without a warrant.

Nor does the cop have the power to command a civilian to do something unconstitutional.

The cop and the police department will lose this.

You are not in charge, and nobody will ever put you in charge, because the way you think is German, not American.

the law is whatever an individual says it is based on how sympathetic they can appear to the general public

I am very sorry to disappoint you but police are not lawmakers, if they want to be, they should run for state legislature or Congress.

Either way, do you realize that you are doing a horrible PR for your buddies? If they knew you would be in a big doo doo.

In case you've forgotten, the question is simply whether the cop wanted to do the draw himself, or was ordering the hospital staff to do it, because that hinges on the cops reason for arresting the nurse.

He could have asked her to do it. She said no. Then he said he'll do it. Then she obstructed.

"If the nurse was obstructing as you claim, then after doing the arrest, he would be free to then conduct the blood draw himself."

He was always free to do the blood draw himself. My guess is he did. Or another nurse volunteered.

You are not in charge, and nobody will ever put you in charge, because the way you think is German, not American.

I think you just insulted the Germans.

He could have asked her to do it. She said no. Then he said he'll do it. Then she obstructed.

Thanks for the on-the-scene, play by play call, though your summary doesn't match the video very well.

He was always free to do the blood draw himself. My guess is he did. Or another nurse volunteered.

From other reading, it appears that after the arrest that it was discovered that the staff had already done a blood draw in the course of treatment, and that blood may or may not have sufficed for what they wanted.

So it seems things get a bit convoluted. Since prosecutors are now investigating the cops actions for criminality, I'm guessing they should be looking at that, including the reason the cops wanted the blood in the first place. (Which is a question independent of whether they had a legal authority to demand it).

Though to be candid, prosecutors might only be investigating to help pacify the public outrage. I won't hold my breath for any finding of wrong doing, much less criminal action. But we'll see.

he should have drawn the blood before the patient came under the protective status of a hospital, i.e. prior to admission.

Detective Jeff Payne is a police phlebotomist.

I suppose they could have called him to the accident scene to do the blood draw but my guess is that they wanted to get the victim to the hospital as quickly as possible, figuring they could could do the blood draw there.

"As a matter of policy, the hospital would not allow non-staffers to draw blood."

The hospital had a policy not to do blood draws unless certain conditions were met. Where did you read that police phlebotomists were not allowed to do so?

"the hospital was obligated to protect the rights of a vulnerable (unconscious) person"

Under the State of Utah law, drivers give up their right to refuse blood draws the moment they're issued a license. You may disagree with the law, but it is what it is until the citizens of Utah change it.

I think the bigger question is why the cop was demanding a blood draw from a victim who was grievously injured as a result of a high-speed police chase.

Apparently it's departmental policy. A good one, I think.

In this case, the surviving driver could sue the dead man's estate by claiming the other driver was weaving and acting erratically -- as though he had been drinking or on drugs -- and that behavior caused him to lose control and crash into him.

Without a blood test, we only have his word.

He's the biggest a-hole on the Internet.

Nuh-uh. You are.

I think you just insulted the Germans.

Vas ist los?

I have a right to draw your blood with a rusty nail a straw and an empty pickle jar,

As always, a true contributor to the discussion.

Thanks for the on-the-scene, play by play call, though your summary doesn't match the video very well.

You're the one citing hypotheticals. So I thought I'd add mine. By the way, the video, as always, leaves out the footage of how everything got to that point.

"including the reason the cops wanted the blood in the first place."

You're like a dog with a bone on that issue. You've lost the argument as to whether or not the police could do the blood draw, so now you're trying to salvage something by hoping to dispute their reason for doing so.

Sad.