Now that it's out there, it crystallizes the zeitgeist. The case law is utterly terrible for the cops. Neo-Confederates care about the states- rights issue concerning Utah law. And they are a sliver of the population. Everybody else knows that the Supreme Court is the law of the land, and what they've said is clear and congenial to the attitudes of most people.

Even if a juror tries to nullify, a hung jury would result in a second trial where it is very unlikely there would be a second juror to nullify.

The police can hardly claim ignorance of the law after two big USSC cases. Certainly, the courts don't accept that excuse from anyone else, let alone those who are charged with enforcing the law on the public.

It could be that the prosecutors will weasel around, trying to find a way to let these two cops off the hook after the public has moved on. But I think the heat is very high on this one and the local media will follow it closely. So the cops are screwed, I think.

Now, if the police force itself resists, then the hits will keep coming until they have their Appomattox moment. It's so much EASIER for them to claim that Payne was a rogue, unstable ass, publicly crucify him and hang his bloody pelt in the public square as an offering to the public, and then be allowed to return to their usual quiet and secretive ways.

I think, much as in any jurisdiction, they will look for ways to let Payne off. But the heat is high and the public will likely remain aroused.

The hospital imposing restrictions on cops on the premises (access to emergency rooms, unable to speak to nurses) just ratchets the pressure higher. The judge, the prosecutors, the rest of the cops, all have to wonder how they will be treated the next time they get shot or hurt. Or a family member.

So I don't think this one just goes down the memory hole months from now.

People have the right to travel in the common manner.

Your mean by car. Does everyone have that "right"? Children? Blind people? Illegals? Those with multiple DUIs?

So much for due process. More like a privilege, isn't it?

Whatever. In the State of Utah, a driver's license comes with the implied consent to a blood draw. The penalty for refusal is loss of driver's license. Where's the unconstitutionality?

The legislature also passed a law saying that an unconscious person "is considered to not have withdrawn the consent" already given. That law has not been challenged nor overturned by any court.

The police can hardly claim ignorance of the law after two big USSC cases.

Ignorance? They were FOLLOWING state law. Your retort is that those are old laws that haven't been cleaned up yet. Give me a f**king break.

"I think, much as in any jurisdiction, they will look for ways to let Payne off."

Hah! Let him off what? Being rude? What's he charged with? I hope he sues them for $10 million (plus back pay).

Ignorance? They were FOLLOWING state law. Your retort is that those are old laws that haven't been cleaned up yet. Give me a f**king break.

It's quite common for superceded laws to remain on the books. Let's look at one example.

Wiki: Sodomy laws in the United States

Of the 14 states which still had sodomy laws on the books, only Montana and Virginia repealed their sodomy laws legislatively.

So is Utah still banning sodomy today? Hell, yes, it is.

Utah.gov: Utah 76-5-402, Sodomy -- Forcible sodomy

So we see that 14 years after the USSC struck down these sodomy laws entirely, Utah has yet to repeal their sodomy law declaring all sodomy to be a Class B misdemeanor. They hide, legislatively, behind their forcible sodomy law (which is irrational but another kettle of fish). Notice that the Utah legislature last revisited this sodomy law in their 2013 General Session. So they chose quite deliberately, 10 years after the sodomy law was struck down by USSC, to amend their sodomy law in 2013 but not to repeal sodomy between consenting adults. Naturally, prosecutors in the state will be careful not to actually charge anyone for a Class B misdemeanor sodomy charge or that portion of the law goes poof the second a defendant goes to a federal judge, even pro se. And that will happen at some point, just a matter of time.

Ignorance? They were FOLLOWING state law. Your retort is that those are old laws that haven't been cleaned up yet. Give me a f**king break.

You don't deserve an F'ing break because you are wrong.

No probable cause = no police authority to draw blood. Period. Implied consent = nothing in this case. That IS the law.

hey were FOLLOWING state law. Your retort is that those are old laws that haven't been cleaned up yet. Give me a f**king break.

That wasn't my retort.

My retort is that the federal law blots out the state law whether or not the state law is repealed. The legislators of Utah can be as stubborn as they will. What the Supreme Court says the law is, is also the law in Utah, and the Utah statutes are voided by the Supreme Court decision, whether Utah chooses to repeal the law on its books or not.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, we are told, by the cops, all the time. It is the Supreme Law of the Land that the Supreme Court has the final decision as to what the Constitution means, and the Constitution is supreme over all federal and state statutes within its purview.

Drawing blood is squarely within the Constitutional purview, so by writing their decision, the Supreme Court legally erased the Utah statute, regardless of what the Utah legislators do. The Law of the Land - which is The Law - is that the police CANNOT take a blood sample without consent or a warrant. Period. The fine distinctions of the former Utah law are no longer law at all, whether the Utah legislature acts or not, because the Supreme Court has ESTABLISHED the law for Utah and everywhere else by its decision. Everything in state law or local law contrary to that has ALREADY BEEN VOIDED, by the Supreme Court action. That it remains on the statute book is irrelevant. It IS NOT LAW anymore, because the Supreme Court is above that law, and its decisions are the law, not the old law.

Too Conservative gives the example of the sodomy laws. If the Utah troopers burst into somebody's house with or without a warrant, and find two consenting adult men boffing each other, if they arrest them for that they have broken the law, because The Law is that they can do that, and that the state cannot punish it. The state has an old, voided law on its books that it is illegal, but the cops break the law if they attempt to enforce that illegal law against the ACTUAL law, which was set in Washington by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision on the matter IS "The Law". The Utah statute is no longer law. It has been voided.

Whether we're talking buggery or involuntary blood donations, that is still the case. So when police seek to enforce an illegal law, they commit assault and wrongful imprisonment of people acting lawfully. That then puts the police, and the police force budget, in the hazard for criminal and civil prosecution. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the police forces have a duty to make sure that the cops know the law - which, in this case, was not set by Utah but by Washington.

Now, one may have a philosophical problem with that, but the police are not entitled to act on their philosophical issues. Under our constitutional system, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. So the cop leaves the parameters of his duty if he tries to erect a "states rights' political argument as to why he can follow the state statute and ignore the Supreme Court decision. If he goes past theoretical argument into arresting somebody for doing lawful things, he passes over into abuse of authority and should be prosecuted and hammered.

No breaks. Ignorance of the law, on the part of the police especially, is absolutely no excuse. The same abusive officers will tell YOU so, and they are also subject to law.

It's quite common for superceded laws to remain on the books. Let's look at one example.

The separation of powers doctrine makes it quite obvious that courts, even the USSC, cannot order even state legislatures to repeal any law, even ones they declare unconstitutional.

That wasn't my retort.

That post wasn't directed at you.

"What the Supreme Court says the law is, is also the law in Utah"

Maybe. I mean, the defense can certainly bring it up at trial and the judge may or may not agree.

But at this stage, all the cop tried to do was draw the blood.

But are they enforcing those old laws? Utah is. So where's the parallel?

Utah is not enforcing sodomy between consenting adults as a Class B misdemeanor because the second they try to do that, the defendant will run to a federal judge who will immediately strike it down. Then Utah loses even its (moot) social disapproval of sodomy that it is keeping on the books for that purpose.

Even though Utah is generally considered to have a pretty good legislature, they all make mistakes. I recall some years back that our state legislature had to be called back into session because they had simply forgotten to include allocating any money for the bus system in the state's largest city. Oops.

Don't assume they're being perverse when they're just being incompetent. But we know Utah revisited their sodomy statute in 2013, ten years after sodomy between adults was legalized by USSC. So in that instance, we know for certain that they deliberately left that unenforceable sodomy statute for consenting adults on the books. Notice they disapprove of hetero-sodomy equally with homo-sodomy.

Mormons.     : )

It's quite common for superceded laws to remain on the books.

[Thread Article] Her admirers do not include Gregg Re, a lawyer who argues in a recent Daily Caller piece, provocatively headlined "Arrested Utah Nurse Had It Coming," that "Wubbels was likely legally wrong under federal law."

Nonsense. Nurse Wubbels was entirely correct. The guy the cop wanted to draw blood from was not even a suspect... he was the victim... the other driver was fleeing the police. The police attention was on the other driver... they were in hot pursuit.

There was no probable cause and no hope of a showing of exigent circumstances to perform a non-consensual evidentiary blood draw from the victim.

It is a clear and extremely compelling case of a false arrest of the nurse. Whatever comes to the cop, or his municipality, they have it coming.

The best the cop can hope for is that the municipality claims he was acting within the terms of his employment and brokers a very big settlement at their expense to make the case go away. There is no way to defend this crap. This one can be filed with shocks the conscience of the community.

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 reasonably obtain a warrant before having a blood sam­ple drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so. 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.

Unconstitutional State law or regulation that has been allowed to remain on the books does not help in the least. Such law or regulation is null and void, whether it remains on the books or not.

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep22&id=9&collection=journals&index=usreportsloc#217

Gibbons v Ogden, 22 US 1, 209-11 (1824)

9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed 29

United States Supreme Court

GIBBONS v. OGDEN, (1824)

No. 43

Decided: March 2, 1824

[...]

At 209-211

Since, however, in exercising the power of regulating their own purely internal affairs, whether

[22 U.S. 210]

of trading or police, the States may sometimes enact laws, the validity of which depends on their interfering with, and being contrary to, an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the constitution, the Court will enter upon the inquiry, whether the laws of New-York, as expounded by the highest tribunal of that State, have, in their application to this case, come into collision with an act of Congress, and deprived a citizen of a right to which that act entitles him. Should this collision exist, it will be immaterial whether those laws were passed in virtue of a concurrent power ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States,’ or, in virtue of a power to regulate their domestic trade and police. In one case and the other, the acts of New-York must yield to the law of Congress; and the decision sustaining the privilege they confer, against a right given by a law of the Union, must be erroneous.

This opinion has been frequently expressed in this Court, and is founded, as well on the nature of the government as on the words of the constitution. In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers.

But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act,

[22 U.S. 211]

inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.

The best the cop can hope for is that the municipality claims he was acting within the terms of his employment and brokers a very big settlement at their expense to make the case go away. There is no way to defend this crap. This one can be filed with shocks the conscience of the community.

But his supervisor ordered him (supposedly) to get the blood sample at the request of the Logan, Utah police in whose jurisdiction the crash occurred. However, it was the Utah state patrol who responded to the 911 calls of a reckless driver and chased the perp into the head-on crash and then put out the driver when he was on fire. The Logan PD only rolled out when their fire department and ambulance responded.

So where was Payne's probable cause for anything? The SLCPD had no involvement at all.

So Payne and his supervisor can only be seen as agents of the Logan PD. But Logan PD never had control of the crime scene as far as I know. The Utah troopers caused the crash and controlled the accident scene.

This business of who was asking for the blood is one that no one has answered, that few have even asked. But SLCPD had no interest or jurisdiction. Logan PD had no compelling interest. But Utah highway patrol did.

Well, we'll have to wait to see what the investigation reveals. I'm thinking that the prosecutors are going to carefully try to avoid these questions entirely. But we do know that Payne didn't assault and arrest that nurse to get the blood just so he could "protect" the victim. That explanation stinks to high heaven. You know it's a bullshit lie from the moment you hear it.

Utah troopers caused the crash

You Think so

wwwwhhhaaaaTTT
boris

This business of who was asking for the blood is one that no one has answered, that few have even asked. But SLCPD had no interest or jurisdiction. Logan PD had no compelling interest. But Utah highway patrol did.

Who, and why. Given there was no lawful reason to obtain the sample, the investigation should definitely try to get at the reason *why* Payne was so hot under the collar to get it.

Maybe he was having a bad day, or maybe he's had a long standing grudge against the hospital staff and had a score to settle. Or maybe it was for some more nefarious reason (as we theorized before of the police possibly wanting to frame him as being partly responsible for the crash).

Yes, there is absolutely no way any blood test results could be used to protect the victim. It could only be used against him.

Who, and why. Given there was no lawful reason to obtain the sample, the investigation should definitely try to get at the reason *why* Payne was so hot under the collar to get it.

Exactly. Was he going to have the blood processed at the expense of the SLC PD when they had no interest in the case and could not do anything about it?

Or was he going to deliver the blood to Logan PD or the Utah highway patrol?

I can't get away from this question: who wanted this blood and why? And why was it important enough to assault and arrest a nurse?

If the trucker or the nurse sues, it won't be just the SLCPD on the hook. It will likely be Logan PD and/or UHP as well. The discovery process and subpeonas will make for interesting reading.

Maybe. I mean, the defense can certainly bring it up at trial and the judge may or may not agree.

But at this stage, all the cop tried to do was draw the blood.

Nope. There's no procedural requirement that the cops be permitted to get what they want, and the defendant can sort it out at trial.

The cops don't have the right to take what they have no right to take. The cops had no right at all to arrest that woman. Now THEY'RE the defendants, so THEY can argue at THEIR trials that they DID have the right to do what they did.

There's no reason to let the process that the cops would prefer be the one that governs. Rather, the process that holds them accountable seems to be the better one.

I can't get away from this question: who wanted this blood and why? And why was it important enough to assault and arrest a nurse?

You're thinking logically. Payne was using a different logic: I AM A FUCKING COP, I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, A LITTLE PERSON, TO DO SOMETHING THAT I SAY IS NECESSARY. YOU HAVE DARED TO DEFY ME. MY SUPERVISOR AND I BOTH AGREE: NOBODY SAYS NO TO THE COPS. I WARNED YOU, YOU STOOD UP TO ME AND DARED ME TO DO THIS. THE LAW WILL ALWAYS PROTECT ME, YOU STUPID BITCH. NOW KNEEL AND SUBMIT!

THAT was what he was thinking. It was pure RAGE at having his "authoritah" questioned.

Trouble is, this guy just ran into the end of the road. Yep, that usually works for cops. Not this time. This one goes to the cross, a sacrificial victim that will be thrown to the mob to satisfy their hatred for abuse by the cops.

He deserves it, of course, as does his supervisor. He's an arrogant prick who has never been called to the mat before, because that never happens. But he had his little "Respect ma authoritah!" meltdown on camera in a hospital with an intelligent former Olympian, and the victim lying in bed was also a cop - something Payne could not have known.

Essentially, he pulled the pin on a grenade and then dropped it into his own pants.

There is no escape for him.

There's no procedural requirement that the cops be permitted to get what they want,

Other than the current State of Utah law, no.

"and the defendant can sort it out at trial."

Correct. If it had gone that far.

"The cops don't have the right to take what they have no right to take."

Sure they do. State law and police procedures said they did. NOW, whether or not that evidence would be admissable is another story.

"The cops had no right at all to arrest that woman."

You might argue that they shouldn't have, but they did have the power to arrest her for interfering with an investigation, obstruction, and resisting arrest.

There is no escape for him.

What's the penalty if he gets convicted for being rude? Because that's the only charge I see.

THAT was what he was thinking. It was pure RAGE at having his "authoritah" questioned.

Yeah but who was he going to deliver the blood to? That's my obsession.

SLCPD had no jurisdiction at all. The accident did not occur in their territory. They could only be acting as the agents of Logan PD or Utah highway patrol. They couldn't even test the blood and submit the results in a court because they were not party to anything (except assaulting and arresting a burn unit head nurse).

So where was Payne's probable cause for anything?

You DO love a mystery, don't you? He might have been the only police phlebologist available at the time, and he worked in this capacity for all law enforcement agencies.

Mystery solved.

What's the penalty if he gets convicted for being rude? Because that's the only charge I see.

False arrest, for one thing. Whether she was charged or not.

The same laws that protect police from interference also protect EMTs and medical personnel. So those were violated as well.

Other than the current State of Utah law, no.

Utah law is irrelevant. It does not exist on the subject matter here. There is only federal law. Utah law broke it. So Utah law ceased to exist.

What's the penalty if he gets convicted for being rude?

Loss of two jobs, no pension, no eligibility for retirement or unemployment benefits, poverty, despair.

You're thinking logically. Payne was using a different logic: I AM A FUCKING COP, I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, A LITTLE PERSON, TO DO SOMETHING THAT I SAY IS NECESSARY. YOU HAVE DARED TO DEFY ME. MY SUPERVISOR AND I BOTH AGREE: NOBODY SAYS NO TO THE COPS. I WARNED YOU, YOU STOOD UP TO ME AND DARED ME TO DO THIS. THE LAW WILL ALWAYS PROTECT ME, YOU STUPID BITCH. NOW KNEEL AND SUBMIT!

THAT was what he was thinking. It was pure RAGE at having his "authoritah" questioned.

That's the best case scenario, but the potential is there for the motive to be more than simply a cop who went off on a power trip. Not long ago, a cop accidentally videoed himself planting drug evidence to frame an innocent person, or perhaps more accurately, someone the cop believed was not innocent but for whom insufficient evidence existed to justify and arrest and charging.

That event was not simply a cop losing his cool one day, but was instead an indication of an intentional criminal act meant to destroy the life of a person he did not care for, and strongly suggests it was one corrupt incident of many committed against a great many people.

In this case with Payne, maybe it was a case of a cop losing his cool, but I would point out that the cop certainly didn't decide 2 minutes before the arrest that he wanted the blood sample. There is little doubt he traveled whatever distance it was to the hospital with the intent of getting the blood sample, and it's safe to say that decision was made long before he lost his cool with the nurse. He had a premeditated intent to get the blood sample before he arrived there, and it was for some reason that obviously had no lawful authority.

So the reason Payne and his supervisor wanted the blood sample should be explored and should not be considered trite.

Loss of two jobs, no pension, no eligibility for retirement or unemployment benefits, poverty, despair.

Well, Payne lost his paramedic job.

So it's one down, one to go.

He had a premeditated intent to get the blood sample before he arrived there, and it was for some reason that obviously had no lawful authority.

He said on the video, "I'm leaving here with those blood vials or a body in tow."

I think those were his orders, no matter what his supervisor may say contrary to that.

The FBI will likely sort it out pretty quickly, even with cops who know their interrogation techniques.

So the reason Payne and his supervisor wanted the blood sample should be explored and should not be considered trite.

I agree with you. Investigate that - and if you find the conspiracy, round them all up and send them to prison for the maximum term. Also round up everybody who covers for them. They may have to hire a new police force as a result, and if so, then good. That's what prisons are for - to open up jobs to other people.

But to keep the public interested, keep focusing on the wild abuse. That whips up the hatred for the cop and his supervisor, and prevents the authorities from closing ranks. Whip the hate to a white hot fury, so they can't let these guys off. Even if they cover for the rest, the public MUST have its blood, and hauling these guys before a public trial, stripping them of everything, and then tracking their beatings and torment, and probably eventual murder, in prison, will be very satisfying for the public, and very troubling for the police, and act to keep them in check.

Since people won't rule themselves as Christian, then rule them as Satan.

Well, Payne lost his paramedic job.

So it's one down, one to go.

Four to go:

He has to lose his cop job, his property, his liberty and, in prison, his anal virginity. At a minimum.

He is hated. He must be made an example of through public crucifixion, modern style. That involves prison, prison beatings, prison rape and early death.

We need his head on a pike. Nothing short of that will do.

He had a premeditated intent to get the blood sample before he arrived there, and it was for some reason that obviously had no lawful authority.

I'd point as well to the timeline here.

Wubbels was dragged out under arrest but that only lasted for about 20 minutes before she was released. According to the videos we have of the arrest, less than 15 minutes into the arrest, the supervisor who Rotten Cop says ordered him to return with "blood vials or a body in tow" was already on the scene, trying to get Wubbels to give in or forget the matter. This supervisor is a watch commander with responsibility for hundreds of on-duty SLCPD officers around the city. But, busy as he was with supervising hundreds of cops minute to minute, he was on the scene talking to Wubbels and Rotten Cop in less than 15 minutes after Rotten Cop arrested her.

So that timeline suggests the conspiracy I have outlined previously and that Rotten Cop was telling the truth when he said he was ordered to return "with blood vials or a body in tow (Wubbels)".

Rotten Cop also said that they were doing this all to "protect" the trucker who was injured in Logan (81 miles outside the SLCPD jurisdiction) and that he "had never gone this far before" and that "they don't have PC (probable cause)" when another cop asked why they didn't just get a warrant for the blood, meaning he knew they were well outside any normal and legal procedure. And still he went ahead and assaulted and arrested the nurse.

And who is this "they" who didn't have probable cause to get a legal warrant for the blood draw? It could not possibly be the SLCPD. It could only be Logan PD or the Utah highway patrol. Or both. Remember, Rotten Cop said blood vials. Not blood vial. Why would he need more than one blood vial if not to send it to more than one other police agency?

I know I'm repeating myself a bit but I just don't see any way this isn't a conspiracy to deprive the trucker of his 4th Amendment rights and that someone at the Utah highway patrol was behind it all, using the Logan PD and the SLCPD as their agents to get that trucker's blood, come hell or high water. Nothing else makes any sense.

I just know that something stinks royally in SLC. And none of the offered explanations sound like anything more than an attempted coverup so far.

Obviously, I think the SLC Mormon elite has been trying to protect the Utah highway patrol from any exposure of their involvement in this mess. Well, they stalled long enough for them to get their stories straight.

They'll try to offer up Rotten Cop and possibly his supervisor as the scapegoats, despite the fact that SLC PD had no direct interest in the case whatsoever.

False arrest, for one thing.

She clearly obstructed and interfered. And she resisted arrest. Nothing false about that.

The cops don't have the right to take what they have no right to take.

He had the power to take the blood under State of Utah law and police department policy. If the law is outdated or police policies are wrong, that's not his fault.

The fact that the police department changed their policies after this incident is telling. Yet you still blame the cop. Idiot.

She clearly obstructed and interfered. And she resisted arrest.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.”

Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

She clearly obstructed and interfered. And she resisted arrest. Nothing false about that.

Really? Then why did they release her after only 20 minutes?

Even if she was wrong about allowing the blood draw (as you insist), resisting arrest would still be a lawful charge.

But they didn't charge her, did they? And they released her after 20 minutes.

You're about at the end of your rope, I'd say. Mostly reduced to bleating out repetitions of your previous discredited talking points.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

Rarely applied in real life but a great find anyway.

If the law is outdated or police policies are wrong, that's not his fault.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Isn't that what you badge bunnies always say?

Or does that just apply to the serfs?

He had the power to take the blood under State of Utah law and police department policy. If the law is outdated or police policies are wrong, that's not his fault.

The fact that the police department changed their policies after this incident is telling. Yet you still blame the cop. Idiot.

I do blame the cop, you dumb prick. And the reason I do is because a cop is not simply charged with knowing the local and state laws. Ignorance of the federal law is no excuse, and it is certainly no excuse for a cop.

He had no power to take that blood, because the State of Utah law to the contrary, and police department policy to the contrary, are illegal, because they are unconstitutional. The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution, not local laws and police procedures. Where state law and police procedure contradict federal law, they are illegal, and it's illegal for a cop to follow illegal law.

Ignorance of the law - and federal supremacy IS the law - is no excuse. The cop acted illegally, following illegal Utah law and illegal Utah police procedure. It was his legal obligation to know the law, and he didn't. The law is outdated and police policies are wrong, and ignorance of the law is no excuse: it is the cop's personal responsibilty to know the law and enforce it, just as it is everybody else's personal responsibility to know the law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for anybody, including cops and police departments. ESPECIALLY cops and police departments.

It was his fault and their fault for having illegal laws and procedures. By enforcing them, they committed federal crimes and are criminals. His JOB was to enforce the law, and that MEANS enforcing federal law and not state law, where federal law has erased local law. It's his duty to KNOW THAT federal law and to enforce IT, and not the state law or department procedure.

He was ignorant of the law, broke it, made a false arrest, so he is a criminal. I would be willing to grant mercy if he admitted he was wrong and was ignorant of the law. But to the extent that there is doubling down on his right to enforce illegal law - nope - he's defiant in his criminality, he is resisting the law. He must, therefore, be destroyed as an example.

Of course the police department realized they were being criminals and changed their policies immediately. Ignorance of the law was no excuse, they realized their ignorance, and they changed.

Of course I blame the cop, prick. Of course I blame you for thinking like the cop, prick.

Of course if you insult me I will insult you. I recognize that you're a Jack Chick, writing inflammatory things to rouse the rabble. Insulting me is fun. Insulting you is fun. But I'm not an idiot - even the people who know me here and hate me know that I'm not stupid - but you are a prick. Everybody knows that too. Even you.

Really? Then why did they release her after only 20 minutes?

Do you believe they released her only because the charge was bogus? Then you're an idiot.

Ignorance of the law - and federal supremacy IS the law - is no excuse.

Meaning that states do not have the right to legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use? Do we agree on that?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for anybody, including cops and police departments. ESPECIALLY cops and police departments.

Exactly so. If cops can't be expected to know the law to enforce it, then how can the citizenry possibly know and obey the laws?

The Court spoke strongly on this subject twice in the last 4 years. How plain do the justices have to make it about warrantless involuntary blood draws?

Do you believe they released her only because the charge was bogus? Then you're an idiot.

They had no pressure to release her. None of this news about Wubbels reached the press or public until weeks later, when Wubbels's attorney secured all the camera footage and she got so mad watching it that she released to the public via YouTube.

Or both. Remember, Rotten Cop said blood vials. Not blood vial. Why would he need more than one blood vial if not to send it to more than one other police agency?

I don't know about blood draws for alcohol or drug testing, but sometimes a draw for medical screening involves taking more than one vial of blood. Each one is tested in different ways, so....

Whether police crime labs would need more than one, I don't know.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. Rarely applied in real life but a great find anyway.

Would not apply in this case. If the nurse killed the cop to resist this unlawful arrest, she would be prosecuted as a killer.

And really, people should not play "Sola Scriptura" with the Bible, let alone the law.

The problem with doing it with the Bible, where it doesn't really matter, is that you end up believing untrue nonsense because you've read God wrong.

The problem with doing it with law is that it DOES matter - in the sense that you'll really end up in jail or dead if you use your wrong knowledge of the law.

Look at that cite: 136 Ind. 306. That is a case by the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana. Which means only that - if that's still good law in Indiana - that in INDIANA you could resist an unlawful arrest by taking the arresting officer's life.

If you tried that outside of Indiana, that case is NOT LAW AT ALL. It's a mere opinion by the courts of another state. You may as well cite the British courts. It's not law.

A more complete citation would be 136 Ind. 306 (1893). Yep: EIGHTEEN Ninety Three.

Is that still law, even in Indiana? I don't know.

What I DO know is that it was NEVER, EVER the law OUTSIDE of Indiana, and NEVER APPLIED FOR ONE SECOND to anything that occurred in Salt Lake City.

It's NOT LAW.

And this is why we have laws in the United States that people are not permitted to practice law without a license. Law school teaches you how to understand law, how to read law, what IS law and what is NOT law.

The problem with that citation of an 1893 case in Indiana is that people in this Protestant country think of law the same way they think of the Bible: that anybody and everybody, even the plowbow, is entitled to pick up the law book and understand it, just like the Bible.

Truth is, the plowboy who picks up the Bible and reads it doesn't understand it at all (though he might think he does) - but it doesn't really MATTER because nobody enforces the Bible the way people read it - not even God.

But the plowboy who picks up a piece of law and reads it and thinks: I can carry my gun downtown because the Second Amendment says, and "I can even kill the cops if they try to unlawfully arrest me!" is probably going to end up dead in a pool of blood, shot down like a rabid dog.

Individuals have asserted their right to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Individuals have no right whatever to read and interpret the law for themselves. Or rather, they have the right to read it, but they have no right to expect that their interpretation of the law will be the law actually applied to them. The law means what the Supreme Courts with jurisdiction SAY it means. It doesn't mean what anybody thinks it says on the page. It doesn't mean what the cop says it means (but you'd better do as he says, because he can arrest you - the nurse in our case DID let him arrest her - thank God she didn't think she had rights under Plummer! She did not. If you violently resist false arrest by the cops, they can kill you to defend their lives, and they are not criminals if they do so. Plummer is not law.

Once upon a time, over a hundred years ago, it was law in one state. It's not law at all today.

And the Second Amendment does not mean that you have the right to keep and bear arms however you please. If you try to be a Sola Scripturalist with the Bible, God won't kill you. If you do that with the law, the police will.

Everybody should remember that.

The law does not mean what it says. It means what the Supreme Courts say it means. And the Supreme Courts change their minds. So you cannot read the law and think you are acting legally. You also have to read the judicial opinions, and you have to properly understand the hierarchy of authorities.

And no, the written Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land. It SAYS it is, but it is not. The Supreme Court's interpretation of what the Constitution MEANS is the Supreme Law of the Land.

It is men in the top institutions who decide what the law is and what the written law means. This is true whether that is the Constitution or the Bible we are talking about.

In a Protestant country, individuals reject that latter fact and assert that each man is his own supreme court regarding the Bible. Fine. Whatever. Nobody and nothing enforces the Bible in this life.

But the law is enforced by the guns of the cops and the Army, and they'll kill you if you don't follow it as THEY interpret it. Whether they then get sued by your survivors and lose or win that lawsuit will depend on how a lesser court interprets the law - which is to saw, the controlling opinions of the courts above them.

American law is ultimately made by judges sitting on supreme courts. Your civics class may have told you otherwise. Your civics class lied to you.

Plummer is bad law. You cannot kill the police to resist an unlawful arrest. You have to submit to the arrest and work it out in court.

Similarly, if you are a landlord and you go in and evict a non-paying tenant yourself, chances are you are a criminal. It may be your land, but you have no right to use force on a tenant. The monopoly of force belongs to the police. You have to get a court order, and the sheriff will do the eviction - not you.

Similarly, if you carry a pistol in Times Square, the Second Amendment does not protect you at all from going to jail. The Second Amendment means what the New York Court of Appeals say it means - in Times Square - as the US Supreme Court has not given a ruling on those facts.

Similarly, you can shoot somebody who breaks into your house and is threatening you. But you cannot shoot the thief who is running away with your lamp after he's already broken into your house in the back as he goes. If you do, you're going to jail.

It doesn't matter what you think about those things. It doesn't matter if you "agree". Our opinions are that: opinions. There is hard, binding law on those things, whether you agree or not.

If the nurse had shot the cop unlawfully arresting her, she would be going to prison for murder or attempted murder EVEN THOUGH he was violating her civil rights and acting criminally. Her dignity was in danger, not her life, as long as she did not violently resist arrest.

THAT's the law. Plummer? That once was law, for a time, in Indiana. Don't believe for a moment that it is law now. It isn't.

Whether police crime labs would need more than one, I don't know.

I can't imagine they need more than a very small sample of blood for routine police testing purposes. Most, perhaps all, of their tests will be performed on only a few drops of blood.

He had the power to take the blood under State of Utah law and police department policy. If the law is outdated or police policies are wrong, that's not his fault.

If he really believed that, then he would/should have booked the nurse. He instead was "nice" enough to put her not in the back seat of the cruiser as is normal, but the front seat where it would not be safe to drive. He made no attempt to go anywhere and released her after 20 mins.

He knew he was wrong.

And the department did about nothing until after Wubbels made the event public. That's telling indeed!

The law does not mean what it says. It means what the Supreme Courts say it means. And the Supreme Courts change their minds. So you cannot read the law and think you are acting legally. You also have to read the judicial opinions, and you have to properly understand the hierarchy of authorities.

No doubt. I've never said otherwise. Of course, we civilians do not have access to legal databases and legal libraries like a lawyer does. It is not lack of understanding that impedes as much as it is the lack of legal resources available to non-lawyers.

THAT's the law. Plummer? That once was law, for a time, in Indiana. Don't believe for a moment that it is law now. It isn't.

So when was the last time a defense succeeded using Plummer as justification? Hard for me to look up but it shouldn't be difficult for you. For that matter, how many times was it used in Indiana? And do you have any case law to cite that it has been overruled as a precedent in Indiana courts?

If he really believed that, then he would/should have booked the nurse.

So by not booking her, your conclusion is that he knew he was wrong. You believe that.

They had no pressure to release her.

Or to keep her. Officer discretion. Yet you want to turn that into "he knew he was wrong so he released her". That's why you're an idiot.