Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?

I'm telling you that L.Ron Hubbard is the re-incarnation of Joseph Smith! When will you people wake up?

You need to make it your mission in life to inform everyone of the Smith/Hubbard reincarnation threat.

There is another report out that the police department of the victim officer thanked the nurse for sticking up for the injured officer.

Their statement is the second-to-last gray quote in the article above. Yes, they thanked her very nicely.

Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?

He has to try to cling to any shred of legality to make his argument, such as it is.

Just because the law hasn't been challenged and struck down does not mean it is in force, even if it is still on the books officially.

I see. Did you tell the cop that? Did he know that new rules were in effect? Was he aware that laws on the books mean nothing, and that those laws are subject to the whims of the YouTube audience?

Perhaps the cop should do a YouTube poll before he attempts to enforce any law. You never know.

"The nurse was 100% right, legally and ethically."

Nope. She was wrong to interfere with a law enforcement officer acting under State of Utah law. She was not only ignorant of the law, but she was ignorant of the fact that blood on HER patient had already been drawn. Some nurse. That would have ended the conflict right there.

"Naturally, she is a sympathetic figure to the public."

Obviously not to me. So you're saying the law shouldn't apply to sympathetic figures? Lady Justice should lift the blindfold and peek to see if the person is a sympathetic figure?

Hey, those 800,000 DACA kids look like sympathetic figures, too. Let's just go ahead and make them U.S. citizens. F**k the law. OK with you?

Why do you think misterwhite lies about the nurse breaking the law?

Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.

I see. Did you tell the cop that? Did he know that new rules were in effect? Was he aware that laws on the books mean nothing, and that those laws are subject to the whims of the YouTube audience?

The Supremes ruled on this last year. It is his responsibility to know; it is his police department's responsibility to ensure that he knows the law.

She was wrong to interfere with a law enforcement officer acting under State of Utah law.

He was acting unlawfully. You can go argue about that with the USSC if you like. Until they change their minds, he was acting unlawfully under color of authority. And you can't explain that away.

Obviously not to me. So you're saying the law shouldn't apply to sympathetic figures? Lady Justice should lift the blindfold and peek to see if the person is a sympathetic figure? Hey, those 800,000 DACA kids look like sympathetic figures, too. Let's just go ahead and make them U.S. citizens. F**k the law. OK with you?

Now you're just sounding kind of desperate, like someone who already knows they're in the wrong but won't admit it. So you try to inject other issues into what is a straightforward case of police abuse of a nurse who obeyed the law and protected her patient.

Have you noticed that no one single official in Utah is backing the bad cop? Not the mayor, not the chief of police, not the highway patrol, no state legislators, no assorted congeries of deputies' and sheriffs' and police organizations, none. Not even one.

In fact, you are the only person in America trying to defend this idiot cop.

He has to try to cling to any shred of legality to make his argument, such as it is.

Not "to make his argument". It's instead "to defend a cop".

When will you people wake up?

When the scientologists start burning police cars, and looting Mormon Underwear shops?

Obstructing a police oficer IS breaking the law.

Show me the law she broke nolu chan style.

You are just getting emotional about it and saying what your opinion is and representing it as the law.

Your comment is revealing in that you think whatever a police officer says you have to obey even if it is contrary to law.

Also you lied about her obstrucinng him. Where did that happen.

If we follow your thinking you would say if she didn't suck his dick she would be obstructing him. I say that because both his command and my pretend command are not lawful commands.

Not "to make his argument". It's instead "to defend a cop".

You're right.

Maybe we should look at Utah's statutes. These are the 2016 statutes and I found a notation that they were "Superseded 5/9/2017". However, the incident with the Rotten Cop occured at the end of July, after the change in the law. I'm not sure exactly how it was superceded, either by a court challenge to the law after last year's USSC decision on implied consent laws or by the legislature itself. I'm just not the online sleuth that nolu is...

Perhaps misterwhite can explain to us how this Rotten Cop, having had no part in the accident scene and just showing up at the hospital, had any reasonable cause to suspect impaired driving by the victim.

Then he can explain how the Rotten Cop informed the (unconscious) victim that he had a right to refuse blood and breath tests and then read him the legally required state form to tell him he could refuse the tests and what the consequences would be.

According to a Utah law firm that defends DUI cases: "If a law enforcement officer arrests a driver for a Utah DUI he has to read the driver the Utah Implied Consent Admonitions form before conducting the chemical test. The admonition form explains to the driver the consequences of taking a chemical test and of not submitting to the chemical test."

But the Rotten Cop had no grounds whatsoever to believe this driver was impaired while driving. And he did not inform the patient he could refuse to allow a blood test as required by Utah law.

Even prior to the USSC's decision striking down the sanctions on refusal of blood tests in many states, the Rotten Cop had no defense for what he did under Utah law, a serious matter for someone who had been given the rights (and responsibilities) of a detective, i.e. this was no rookie and he was fully responsible to know the law and its proper applications.

No probable cause at all, no reason to believe the victim was impaired in any way. No consent for a blood test from the (unconscious) patient as required by law, no legal warnings of the consequences of refusing the (implied consent) blood test.

The Rotten Cop is screwed. I wouldn't be surprised if he serves six months in prison for this, even in cop-happy America.

misterwhite seems to think that "implied consent" means that any cop can sneak up on any driver of a motor vehicle and just take their blood for any reason at any time. That is not true in any American jurisdiction.

The Supremes ruled on this last year.

Yeah. They said you need consent. Getting a driver's license in the State of Utah gives law enforcement implied consent to draw blood.

"He was acting unlawfully."

Nope. Do I need to cite the State of Utah statute again?

Have you noticed that no one single official in Utah is backing the bad cop?

Yep. Pisses me off. Because the cop was right. The officials are pussies, not wanting to rock the PC boat.

Show me the law she broke nolu chan style.

Index Utah Code
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 8 Offenses Against the Administration of Government
Part 3 Obstructing Governmental Operations
Section 306 Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.

76-8-306. Obstruction of justice in criminal investigations or proceedings -- Elements -- Penalties -- Exceptions.
(1) An actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constitutes a criminal offense:

"Perhaps misterwhite can explain to us how this Rotten Cop, having had no part in the accident scene and just showing up at the hospital, had any reasonable cause to suspect impaired driving by the victim."

He was the trained police phlebologist ordered to collect a blood sample by his supervisor.

"Even prior to the USSC's decision striking down the sanctions on refusal of blood tests in many states, the Rotten Cop had no defense for what he did under Utah law"

The statute you conveniently ignore, than ignorantly ask a question about:

Effective 5/9/2017
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
(1) (a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:

Nope. Do I need to cite the State of Utah statute again?

You did not cite the statute. I posted it above. You simply don't understand the statute's rather plain language.

"Implied consent" is not a prior consent to any taking of blood or breath samples at all, even in cases where they have already arrested someone for DUI. Stop pretending it is. The statute explicitly rules out taking samples without consent.

That was never the law in Utah or in any other state. It isn't my fault that you don't understand this.

Effective 5/9/2017
41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.

Give your source. I haven't been able to find one that explicitly states it was updated on 5/9/2017 which is what you are trying to claim here.

Also, the opening sentence of the statute you are quoting has had that same exact wording for years, at least since 2010 that I can see, via the 2010 Utah statutes at Justia.com.

Further, you always ignore section b) which follows directly your section a).

The officer must have reasonable cause to suspect that the suspect was driving while impaired. Yet the Rotten Cop was not even at the crime scene. And he couldn't have smelled alcohol on him because most of his body had been on fire until the Utah highway patrol put out the flames.

So where is the reasonable cause that Rotten Cop was required to have before demanding any sort of medical test?

And it only gets worse for you. As we look through the statute, we find repeatedly that the officer must obtain consent, without exception. Rotten Cop did not have that consent because the patient was unconscious.

So where is the reasonable cause that Rotten Cop was required to have before demanding any sort of medical test?

He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.

Anyway, we find that Section 1a and 1b are still the same as they have been for decades. The officer must have reasonable cause to believe that a driver has blood levels of alcohol or drugs in violation of Utah law.

Rotten Cop had no such reasonable cause to believe this about another officer (the accident victim) and was not even present at the accident scene.

Nor was there any changes in section 2a: "A peace officer requesting a test or tests shall warn a person that refusal to submit to the test or tests may result in revocation of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle".

Rotten Cop did not "request a test". The patient was unconscious at the time.

Rotten Cop did not "warn a person" about refusal. Again, the patient was unconscious.

Utah state law has no provision for LEO to obtain any blood sample under the implied consent law whatsoever. For any other purpose, such as involuntary blood tests in other types of cases, they must get a warrant from a judge.

He was ordered by his supervisor to the hospital to draw blood.

So he says.

Where are the radio recordings to back up his story?

Why would he, a SLC Unified PD detective, be doing this job when it was entirely a Utah state patrol accident?

Again, he did not have reasonable cause.

Again, he did not request a blood test from the (unconscious) driver.

Again, he did not warn the (unconscious) suspect that he could lose his license for refusing to submit to a blood test.

There is nothing in the law to support what Rotten Cop did.

You may as well admit it. You're just making yourself look like a total scumbag.

Utah: HB0193, 41-6a-520 changes for 2017

This HB0193 was a big housekeeping bill to update a lot of statutes, 41-6a-520 among them.

There is nothing in the law to support what Rotten Cop did.

Then why is the department changing their policy on blood draws? I mean, if Mr. Rotten Cop was being a real cowboy, breaking all the rules, arresting people, demanding things he wasn't entitled to by law, why make changes to good policy?

Unless he WAS following long-standing lawful procedures and now the department is using him (and his supervisor) as scapegoats to cover their asses.

But go ahead. Blame the cop. It's what you're good at.

Rotten Cop did not "request a test". The patient was unconscious at the time.

Hence, "implied consent" in the title of the statute .

If the statute only covered drivers who were conscious and could give consent, then the statute would simply read "consent".

Obtaining a driver's license in the State of Utah means you give your consent to a blood draw whether you're conscious, unconscious, alive or dead.

And I bet the police phlebologist (Mr. Rotten Cop) could cite a dozen instances where this wasn't a problem at the hospital. Until he encountered Ms. Stupid Nurse who doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. But we haven't heard his side, have we? Just Ms. Blabbermouth Nurse.

The nurse was wrong. The cop was right.

The Supreme Court is superior to all cops. The Supreme Court says that the nurse was right and the cop was wrong. Soon, the cop will be an ex-cop, and an ex-EMT, the other cop will suffer important financial consequences,

The people are angry, and the police are part of the government. The government answers to the people.

Obtaining a driver's license in the State of Utah means you give your consent to a blood draw whether you're conscious, unconscious, alive or dead.

The Constitution trumps state and local law, and the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. Utah's state law may say that you give consent, but the Supreme Court says that Utah's law is not legal, so in an instant Utah's law isn't law anymore, because superior law nullifies it.

The nurse was upholding superior law. The cop used force to enforce illegal law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. So the cop and the watch supervisor who told him to make the arrest have no excuse, and they have to burn for their crimes. Their punishment needs to be public, because the public needs to see these cops punished as an example to the rest of the cops, that they are not above the law and they need to know the law before they start pulling out handcuffs, particularly on medical personnel in hospitals.

The city police department is changing its protocol because its protocol results in unconstitutional acts.

The cop doesn't have a pot to piss in.

When the scientologists start burning police cars, and looting Mormon Underwear shops?

The day is coming, hondo. Look how misterwhite has gone coo-coo already.

Then why is the department changing their policy on blood draws?

Because they never dreamed that one of their cops would do something that stupid?

Obtaining a driver's license in the State of Utah means you give your consent to a blood draw whether you're conscious, unconscious, alive or dead.

I understand that that is what you think it means. But it doesn't.

The cop doesn't have a pot to piss in.

He will likely lose his job as an EMT too. The ambulance company he works for cannot afford the bad blood with the local hospitals.

They have him on video, threatening to dump transients on the university hospital in retaliation.

Here are excerpts from his own bodycam. You'll see the nurse still being held in his cop car. I can see why the nurse is so furious with the university police. What a pair of useless tools. Their careers will take a definite hit for this.

Notice the presence of police supervisor James Tracy taking to the nurse seated in the police car. He had ordered Detective Payne to obtain the illegal sample and to arrest the nurse if she refused. Tracy is the "unnamed officer" that has been suspended along with Payne.

When you see the entire video, it actually makes you even angrier.

A bit more from SLC Tribune:

The Logan PD has not given any good reason why they were trying to get a blood sample from a victim of a high-speed chase on a crowded road.

Utah hospital to cops: Stay away from our nurses

The University of Utah Hospital, where a nurse was manhandled and arrested by police as she protected the legal rights of a patient, has imposed new restrictions on law enforcement, including barring officers from patient-care areas and from direct contact with nurses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/04/utah- hospital-bars-cops-from-contact-with-nurses-after-appalling-arrest/

Utah hospital to cops: Stay away from our nurses

The nurses' union is definitely on the warpath.

Good find.

I think Rotten Cop will get fired, possibly get jail time. I think his supervisor will get fired as well. And I think the police chief's days are numbered.

After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.

How about the part where the university cop seems to be offering to sneak Rotten Cop up to the burn unit so he could draw the blood anyway?

You can see why the university is so angry.

Over the last year or so, complaints against the conduct of cops in SLC hit an all-time high. The public thinks they are very arrogant and exceed their authority regularly. I read about it in another article about SLC PD. So this incident kind brought all of that to a head.

she said “her policies won’t allow me to obtain the blood sample without a warrant.”

He didn't ask her to draw the blood sample. Why is she twisting things around to make it look like she's the victim?

Never mind. I just answered my own question.

The Logan PD has not given any good reason why they were trying to get a blood sample from a victim of a high-speed chase on a crowded road.

Would that make a difference? If the reason is good enough, this all goes away? Suddenly law enforcement is right and the nurse is wrong and should be thrown in jail?

Give me a break.

I guess I'm not really surprised though.

After watching part of your video I want to kick misterwhite ass.

You kick my ass in a dream you better wake up and apologize.

Never mind. I just answered my own question.

That's because you're only talking to yourself.

It can hardly be an unfamiliar experience for you.

complaints against the conduct of cops in SLC hit an all-time high. The public thinks they are very arrogant and exceed their authority regularly

Mitt's LDS have joined with ANTIFA, The Oath Keepers, Kim Jong Un, BLM, the Bundy Alliance, Vlad Putin, and alt-right, in opposition to the Trump Fusion Police, Global Deep State.

The Donald is much more of a Uniter, than GW Bush could ever dreamed of!

Would that make a difference? If the reason is good enough, this all goes away? Suddenly law enforcement is right and the nurse is wrong and should be thrown in jail?

Because the details do matter.

Upon what reasonable cause did the Logan PD request that blood sample? Utah's laws are very strict about this. The officer must have reasonable cause. And why should a SLC Unified PD officer (Rotten Cop) be sent hours later to collect a sample for the Logan PD? Logan is a town of 50,000 and surely has its own phlebotomist/detectives. Why didn't they send their own personnel, if they actually had reasonable cause to obtain a blood sample (suspicion that the suspect had BAC of alcohol or other drugs contrary to Utah laws)?

Logan PD is going to have to account for their role in this as well. Why did they ask for his blood? Did they have any reasonable cause to do so? Why would SLC Unified PD send a detective to collect it instead of Logan just sending their own personnel?

Since it was UHP that chased this motorist into oncoming traffic, what role was played by UHP in all this? Why was Logan PD trying to get that blood sample and why was SLCUPD their blood collection agent?

The answer could be as simple as a police department policy which states that in every vehicular accident involving a death, blood samples are taken of everyone involved. Maybe it was his turn to draw samples. Maybe he was the only one available.

You're making this waaaay more complicated than it needs to be.

It can hardly be an unfamiliar experience for you.

On this forum, no. Sometimes I have to repeat myself three or four times before it penetrates the thick skulls of some of the posters here. Like you.

You ask these questions as though their answers would make a difference. They won't and you know it. So why waste everyone's time?

It will make a difference when the police inquiries are made and when the trials begin. This will go to trial, first criminal court, then civil.

The answer could be as simple as a police department policy which states that in every vehicular accident involving a death, blood samples are taken of everyone involved.

That is impossible. You're just making crap up.

The police cannot make up their own policy to test everyone if the law says they must have probable cause to suspect impairment. And the Logan PD and the SLCUPD did not have any such probable cause at all. They were the errand boys of the Utah highway patrol who are no doubt desperate to keep their hands clean at this point. I'm not sure that will work out for them. I expect UHP will suspend one or more supervisors very shortly and they will be included in the criminal investigation.