I'm not misreading the ruling. That will be clear at the end of all of this: the cop will not be vindicated. He will be crucified.

You're right, I think. He admitted on camera that he knew that they had no probable cause (UHP and Logan PD for whom he acted as an agent).

And it is clear he plans to rely on a Nuremburg defense, "I was only following the orders of my boss". That rarely works well, especially for a police detective who has received extensive training as it related to his phlebotomist qualifications.

Rotten Cop and his supervisor should spend six months to a year in the general population of a Utah state prison. Perhaps along with one or more supervisors from Logan PD and the Utah state patrol. They all had to be in on it. It was a conspiracy.

Implied consent and probably cause are two different animals.

Probable cause? Why probable cause? Why not reasonable suspicion? Preponderance of the evidence?

And good luck finding those things from a dead man. Yet Utah law states that a blood draw may be done on a dead man. How can that be?

all conspired to violate the 4th Amendment rights of the patient

He consented to a blood draw when he received his Utah driver's license. That's the law.

He admitted on camera that he knew that they had no probable cause

Which he needed in order for the hospital to do the blood draw. He was a trained police phlebologist. He didn't need the hospital to do the blood draw. He was qualified to do the blood draw. But the nurse prevented him from doing so. So she was arrested for obstruction.

Why didn't she tell the cop that the hospital had already done a blood draw?

Just some cruft that has not been repealed.

Well, you can say that about any law, can't you? What makes you think the Utah State legislature wants it repealed -- other than the fact that it would bolster your argument?

All along, on multiple threads, you've been saying they couldn't do a blood draw on an unconscious person. I provide proof they can and your response is that the law is "just some cruft that has not been repealed"?

Pathetic. I expected more from you.

He consented to a blood draw when he received his Utah driver's license. That's the law.

No, it isn't.

You are apparently too ignorant to understand the actual difference between "consent" and "implied consent". It simply does not mean what you say.

All of these state laws use the term "implied consent". What they really want is unfettered consent but the courts (and some legislatures) won't allow it.

If the law in Utah (or anywhere) was as you say, there would be no mention of needing probable cause, giving the suspect the right to refuse, etc.

Either way you try to run it, this was a fishing expedition.

I'm not misreading the ruling.

The ruling stated that exigent circumstances alone were not sufficient for a warrantless blood draw. Nothing to do with this case.

"Yes, he threatened his employers by taking all of the transients to that hospital.

How are his employers threatened by that? The hospital would be pissed, yeah. That's the intent.

Either way you try to run it, this was a fishing expedition.

You don't know that. As I said before, it could be as simple as departmental policy requiring blood draws of all drivers involved in a fatal accident.

Which I happen to agree with, since it then goes into the record and can be used in future litigation.

You are apparently too ignorant to understand the actual difference between "consent" and "implied consent".

Fine. He implicitly consented to a blood draw when he received his Utah driver's license. Better?

"What they really want is unfettered consent but the courts (and some legislatures) won't allow it."

No. All they want is implied consent. This way, if the driver refuses, he can be charged.

"If the law in Utah (or anywhere) was as you say, there would be no mention of needing probable cause, giving the suspect the right to refuse, etc."

If the law is how YOU say, then how do they get probable cause or the right to refuse from an unconscious person? They can't. Yet the Utah law I cited says they can do a blood draw on an unconscious person.

How do you explain that?

How are his employers threatened by that? The hospital would be pissed, yeah. That's the intent.

I would bet that the university hospital (and others) will all inevitably impose new terms of service on private ambulance companies as a result of this.

And the cop will be fired by Gold Cross too. He probably has been already. They don't need the grief from the public or the hospitals.

BTW, you haven't mentioned the charges the cop will likely face.

https://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/SB0106.html

Looks to me like he is guilty of a class A misdemeanor assault of medical personnel. Since she was not injured, he likely will not qualify for a felony charge. Too bad.

If the law is how YOU say, then how do they get probable cause or the right to refuse from an unconscious person? They can't.

Plenty of ways. They might find open containers of alcohol in an accident. Or the driver might reek of alcohol. Or their eyes might be dilated enough to suspect narcotics. Those are just a few of the obvious ones.

When the patient is unconscious, they get a warrant.

Any metro area like SLC has at least one judge ready to issue warrants in less than a half hour. Yet this cop shows up hours later at the hospital and admits on camera to another cop that they can't apply for a warrant because they lack probable cause. This only heightens his guilt.

It does open a question up as to whether the SLCPD or Logan PD or UHP actually did try to get a warrant and got turned down by a judge. That would only increase their guilt and potential criminal/civil penalties.

BTW, you haven't mentioned the charges the cop will likely face.

They won't face any charges. None that won't be thrown out.

She obstructed a police officer. She was arrested for obstruction. She then resisted arrest and and the police officer used only the force necessary to place her into the patrol car.

You're as bad as the MSM with your made-up facts and your made-up laws. And this is with a video showing you exactly what happened.

We'll see in court how happily this works out for the criminal conspirators at SLCUPD, Logan PD, and Utah highway patrol.

If indeed they had taken the man's blood, they would have used the fact that he was most likely on medication administered by the hospital as proof that he was DWI.

You need probable cause to arrest. So the law is saying the test or tests may be administered (on an unconscious person) whether there is probable cause or not.

"When the patient is unconscious, they get a warrant."

The law says nothing about a warrant.

You keep insisting that probable cause and/or a warrant is always required for anyone. Then why does the State of Utah have a separate section of the law devoted to dead or unconscious people ... unless the requirements are different?

This is why we have trials and juries.

Yeah. That's what I thought, too. But it looks to me like you already found him "guilty of a class A misdemeanor assault of medical personnel".

So I have to wait for a trial and jury, while you're free to immediately find him guilty of assault before he's even been charged.

You need probable cause to arrest. So the law is saying the test or tests may be administered (on an unconscious person) whether there is probable cause or not.

The Utah law leaves that open. In my reading, the officer can demand a blood test whether the suspect has been arrested or not. Perhaps this was legislative neglect but I think it was deliberate. It increases the incentives for the suspected drunken/drugged driver to honor his implied consent to a blood test even if he hasn't been arrested yet. And it applies the penalties of refusal to any driver who refuses even if they haven't been arrested or charged. Utah intends to punish the refusal itself, even for someone who is innocent of DUI. IMO. This is done to prevent lawyering and sharpshooting by suspects and to curtail civil suits against police.

The law says nothing about a warrant.

But the Supreme Court does. They do honor some very limited exceptions to warrantless blood draws but only in "exigent circumstances", according to their 2016 decision. In this case, hours had already passed which means there must be some very substantial probable cause to justify a warrantless involuntary blood draw.

But it looks to me like you already found him "guilty of a class A misdemeanor assault of medical personnel".

Me and 99.9% of America.

Good luck finding a jury for this one.

And it is like a bad joke to hear you, of all people, try to feign concern over presumption of innocence. We do have some pretty good video here, not just vague or inaccurate initial reporting and questionable eyewitnesses.

They do honor some very limited exceptions to warrantless blood draws but only in "exigent circumstances", according to their 2016 decision.

According to that decision, "exigent circumstances" by itself does not justify a warrantless blood draw. There must be other, additional factors.

That's it. That's all they said. It has no bearing on this case -- the cop was not justifying the blood draw under "exigent circumstances".

Good luck finding a jury for this one.

Good luck finding a prosecutor who won't be Nifong'd.

"And it is like a bad joke to hear you, of all people, try to feign concern over presumption of innocence. We do have some pretty good video here, not just vague or inaccurate initial reporting and questionable eyewitnesses."

And what does the video show? Everyone being polite and reasonable -- right up to the point where she refuses to allow him to do the blood draw. He lawfully places her under arrest for obstruction and she hysterically runs away and resists arrest. He takes her outside and places her in the car.

Yet you and "99.9% of America" actually believe that he is guilty of a class A misdemeanor assault of medical personnel? If so, then I give up on our legal system. I've already given up on y you. The other 99.9% of the people are simply ignorant of the facts because they've been lied to.

Good luck finding a prosecutor who won't be Nifong'd.

The prosecutors should worry more about the reaction of voters if they fail to prosecute effectively or stage a phony show trial.

And what does the video show? Everyone being polite and reasonable -- right up to the point where she refuses to allow him to do the blood draw. He lawfully places her under arrest for obstruction and she hysterically runs away and resists arrest. He takes her outside and places her in the car.

You have crossed into the realm of outright lying.

She did not run away. He lunged at her, pinned her arms behind her back cruelly, and forced her out of her workplace (as responsible head nurse of a burn unit). And it looked like he was trying to break her arm as he manhandled her and spoke to her in a very angry way.

she refuses to allow him to do the blood draw

inTeresTing

her case is blown

Kim Davis was jailed for far less

which way The pc winds are blowing

love
boris

She did not run away. He lunged at her

He said, "We're done. You're under arrest." She then backed away from him and started screaming. She resisted arrest.

"And it looked like he was trying to break her arm"

What a drama queen. Emphasis on "queen".

Kim Davis was jailed for far less

Every once in a while something profound emerges from the soup of your posts.

The pc winds

shariah

jihad

nuclear winTer

snowflakes

blow here

relenTlessly

love
boris

I can tell you're disappointed that he didn't just pull a gun and shoot that Confederate nurse.

Nah. I think he did everything correctly.

He was patient and waited ... and waited ... and waited while she dicked around and checked hospital policy, actually took time to print out the policy, showed it to him, called her supervisor and chatted away .. I would have tased her and told her to get the fuck out of the way.

According to the Logan Police Department, officers responded to 6200 South and Highway 89/91 in Wellsville after the deadly crash. The crash occurred after Utah Highway Patrol received numerous 911 calls reporting an erratic driver, and troopers attempted a traffic stop on a black Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck. The driver of the pickup truck fled from troopers, and during the ensuing pursuit the driver veered into the oncoming lanes and struck a semi-truck head on.

Sooo...Someone driving on the correct side of the road is slammed by an SUV driving on the wrong side of the road while pursued by police.

Yeah, sounds like the cops were fishing for additional crimes here that most likely were not there or any reason to investigate. I mean someone who was just in a head on collision is going to be disoriented regardless of the last beverage taken.

I had a buddy in HS who was in a similar situation. Car veered into oncoming traffic hit him head on (he survived). Last thing he remembers before losing consciousness was a needle going in his arm to draw blood from the EMT crew.

Pretty crappy people are treated as guilty immediately when an accident is not their fault.

I'm sure his age had to do something with it too (17).

So - the driver of the semi-truck was the guy who was seriously burned in a reckless police chase and was guilty of nothing except for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My theory still stands - the cops wanted to find something to charge the semi-truck driver with so that their actions that caused the crashed would be justified. If indeed they had taken the man's blood, they would have used the fact that he was most likely on medication administered by the hospital as proof that he was DWI.

Points well taken and I agree with you.

It's the role of Utah highway patrol that has not come to light yet. But I think it will. This was not cooked up by Logan PD or SLCUPD, they were merely accomplices and agents of the UHP. IMO.

You are right. We might find out Logan PD and SLCUPD had faulty information on the nature of the crash and stepped out accordingly. As we peel the onion more this stinks.

Implied consent and probably cause are two different animals. The former does not come into operation until the latter is determined to exist.

Indeed. Beat me to it. :)

According to the Logan Police Department, officers responded to 6200 South and Highway 89/91 in Wellsville after the deadly crash. The crash occurred after Utah Highway Patrol received numerous 911 calls reporting an erratic driver, and troopers attempted a traffic stop on a black Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck.

The Logan PD responded only after the crash, when their fire department and ambulances were already on their way. The Utah HP had chased the driver and put out the burning victim and they had jurisdiction over the local cops in this accident.

This is why it is so puzzling that they obviously put the Logan PD up to getting a blood sample and then Logan PD dragged in Rotten Cop and his supervisor at SLCUPD to do the deed. You know, to "protect" the burned truck driver.

What puzzles me is why Logan PD and SLCUPD agreed to be the henchmen for Utah highway patrol. It makes no sense.

Exactly. Just some cruft that has not been repealed. Sometimes this is just sloppiness by legislators, other times I think they leave these unconstitutional laws on the books just to bamboozle victims of unconstitutional searches by telling this "this is the law".

Joel Segal mentioned this on one of his documentaries. He said there are probably thousands of city/town ordinances which have not been challenged which are Unconstitutional.

a conspiracy by UHP, Logan PD, and SLCUPD to knowingly deprive a crime victim of his constitutional rights

It's a federal organized crime racket (Fusion Centers) founded by the Bush DHS/DOJ, so the Trump DOJ under Jeff Sessions will ignore it, and decline to prosecute the gangbangers in blue under the RICO statutes. Establishment swamp dwelling Republicans and Democrats will stick together and ignore the US Constitution, the Bill or Rights, and the Rule of Law.

The whole Fusion Center Cop Klan (FCCK) should be in jail!

Did they ever get the sample after the nurse was arrested?

Nope.

If that cop was so sure he was right, why didn't he just leave another SLCPD officer at the car with the nurse and go in and start hauling out any staff who objected to his taking a blood sample?

It's because he knew he was in the wrong all along. He said they had no probable cause on tape, he said he'd never gone so far before. And he said he was doing it on the orders of his superior.

Did they ever get the sample after the nurse was arrested?

Nope.

Some report(s) said that they got some blood that the hospital had taken earlier for medical tests.

AFAIK they did get some blood from someone there, likely in violation of hospital policy.

Some report(s) said that they got some blood that the hospital had taken earlier for medical tests.

I read a lot of these articles and I haven't come across any reports that they actually got his blood.

If they did, the penalties will be even harsher since they were in the wrong to begin with.

If you can find any reliable reporting that they did get the blood, post me a link.

and go in and start hauling out any staff who objected to his taking a blood sample?

Maybe by then they informed him they already had a blood sample.

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf

Missouri v McNeely, S Ct 11-1425, 569 US (17 Apr 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

MISSOURI
v.
MCNEELY

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

No. 11–1425. Argued January 9, 2013—Decided April 17, 2013

Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speed- ing and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing.

The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sam- ple. McNeely’s BAC tested well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He moved to suppress the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court agreed, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeely’s blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’” id., at 770. This case, the state court found, involved a routine DWI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensual warrantless test violated McNeely’s right to be free from unrea- sonable searches of his person.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

358 S. W. 3d 65, affirmed.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, and IV, concluding that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant. Pp. 4–13, 20–23.

(a) The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception, see, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 224, applies here, where the search involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeely's skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a crimi­nal investigation. One recognized exception "applies when '" the exigencies of the situation" make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable.' " Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___. This Court looks to the totality of circumstances in determining whether an exigency exits. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 406. Applying this approach in Schmerber, the Court found a warrantless blood test reasonable after considering all of the facts and circumstances of that case and carefully basing its holding on those specific facts, including that alcohol levels decline after drinking stops and that testing was delayed while offocers transported the injured suspect to the hospital and investigated the accident scene. Pp. 4-8.

(b) The State nonetheless seeks a per se rule, contending that exi­gent circumstances necessarily exist when an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has been driving of alcohol because BAC evidence is inherently evanescent. Though a person's blood alcohol level declines until the alcohol is eliminated, it does not follow that the court should depart from careful case-by-case assessment of exigency. When officers in drunk-driving investigations can reasonable obtain a warrant before having a blood sam­ple drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. See McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 456. Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol's disspation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts, as in Schmerber, not to accept the "considerable overgeneralization" that a per se rule would reflect, Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 393. Blood testing is different in critical respects from other destruction-of-evidence cases. Unlike a situation where, e.g., a suspect has control over easily disposable evidence, see Cupp v. Murphy 412 U.S. 291, 296, BAC evidence naturally dissipates in a gradual and relatively predictable manner. Moreover, because an officer must typically take a DWI suspect to a medical facility and obtain atrained medical professional's assistance before having a blood test conducted, some delay between the time of the arrest or accident and time of the test is inevitable regardless of whether a warrant is ob­tained. The State's rule also fails to account for advances in the 47 years since Schmerber was decided that allow for the more expeditious processing of warrant applications, particularly in contexts like drunk-driving investigations where the evidence supporting probable cause is simple. The natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support an exigency finding in a specific case, as it did in Schmerber, but it does not do so categorically. Pp. 8–13.

(c) Because the State sought a per se rule here, it did not argue that there were exigent circumstances in this particular case. The arguments and the record thus do not provide the Court with an adequate framework for a detailed discussion of all the relevant factors that can be taken into account in determining the reasonableness of acting without a warrant. It suffices to say that the metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream and the ensuing loss of evidence are among the factors that must be considered in deciding whether a warrant is required. Pp. 20–23. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, joined by JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part III that other arguments advanced by the State and amici in support of a per se rule are unpersuasive. Their concern that a case-by-case approach to exigency will not provide adequate guidance to law enforcement officers may make the desire for a bright-line rule understandable, but the Fourth Amendment will not tolerate adoption of an overly broad categorical approach in this context. A fact-intensive, totality of the circumstances, approach is hardly unique within this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U. S. 119, 123–125. They also contend that the privacy interest implicated here is minimal. But motorists’ diminished expectation of privacy does not diminish their privacy interest in preventing a government agent from piercing their skin. And though a blood test conducted in a medical setting by trained personnel is less intrusive than other bodily invasions, this Court has never retreated from its recognition that any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests. Finally, the government’s general interest in combating drunk driving does not justify departing from the warrant requirement without showing exigent circumstances that make securing a warrant impractical in a particular case. Pp. 15–20.

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

NYSlimes:

The cops lose here, and lose badly because they used coercive force illegally to try to force medical staff to do what it was illegal for them to do.

The cops don't have a pot to piss in, they have angered the people who pay their salaries, and they are going down, as examples to the whole of American policedom.

but for medical purposes associated with the patient's condition and treatment plan.

They still don't have probable cause, a warrant, or even reasonable suspicion of any crime. The fact that it was already drawn, really changes nothing from a legal standpoint, IMO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe they did get blood but for medical purposes associated with the patient's condition and treatment plan.

Maybe, but without a warrant that blood was not, and should not be, available for use by law enforcement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that an "implied consent" law of some state is inferior to and cannot supersede the Supreme Court

Yeah. That stupid federalism and states rights is so passe. We need a one-size size-fits-all federal government.