Excellent. So, Payne lost his job AND his ambulance job, and the arrogant police lieutenant is a lieutenant no more. Now comes the lawsuit, against both of them, it is to be hoped.

and the arrogant police lieutenant is a lieutenant no more

Not a supervisor. Just an officer. You have to wonder if he's back in a squad car on patrol.

I'd think they would both just retire because it doesn't seem they have much to gain hanging around.

The bigger issue will be a civil lawsuit but I do expect that the nurse will get a large payout to shut up and go away. She has a young child at home and she could take it and retire to raise the toddler. It would have to be tempting. And she could still sue the two cops even after she dropped the SLCPD as a defendant.

All of your cheering for corruption is a black mark on your soul.

As Ed noted, the Mayor of Salt Lake City claimed this would have been the result whether or not Wubbels’ attorney had released the body cam video of her arrest. I don’t buy that at all. Frankly, without the video I believe Payne and Tracy would have escaped any serious consequences and maybe even have lied about what happened. This incident is a good example of why all police officers should have body cameras. It protects them and it protects people from them when they abuse their authority.

I agree completely.

Me too. They would have lied and gotten away with it.

I like even better the option where she does not accept a settlement that silences her, but decides to get MORE money and keep her full rights to speak about it for the rest of life, by suing, and pressing charges (she was falsely arrested). The police department already has fired and demoted these guys. She wins the lawsuit easily. It isn't as though the defense has a pot to piss in, and the jury pool in Salt Lake will not be sympathetic to the police at all. She should not sell herself short and settle. She should conquer. Prosecutors show no mercy when they have the power. Here, she has the power, and she should use it to its fullest extent, use it to extract millions MORE dollars, and be able to publicly deride the criminal cops eavefor the rest of her life. She should not sheathe her sword. Her adversaries are on their knees. She should run them through and leave their broken lives, and the massive economic hit to the police budget, as bloody vengeance. A settlement is not a victory. You settle when the outcome is uncertain. Here, she cannot lose. She should not settle. She should prosecute, sue, and destroy, inflict the maximum damage. The cops showed her no mercy. They lost. She should show them none in reply.

She should run them through and leave their broken lives, and the massive economic hit to the police budget, as bloody vengeance.

Cities have liability insurance for police abuse cases, I think. I think they have to pay part of it but above a certain amount is paid by the insurance.

This is why cities never seem to get too worried over these lawsuits. Part of the cost of doing business and they have insurance.

WaPo, 2016:

In a fascinating paper made public earlier this month, University of Chicago law professor John Rappaport points to a powerful but unlikely resource that is quietly reforming police departments across the country: the insurance industry. Many cities take out policies, either off the private market or by pooling with other cities, to cover any damages that may result from lawsuits accusing police officers of excessive force or other misconduct. Rappaport explains how to guard against such awards, the insurers are in turn demanding, among other things, better training, better use of force policies, better screening in the hiring process, and even the firing of bad cops. Cities that comply get lower premiums, lower deductibles, and other incentives. Cities that don’t may lose coverage altogether. . . .

Maybe SLC is fully exposed financially to a lawsuit but chances are it isn't.

I generally agree with your other remarks. And she could just settle with the city for a 4-5 million and drop them from the lawsuit without signing an NDA and then continue to sue the officers personally, go after their houses and pensions.

I think they have to pay part of it but above a certain amount is paid by the insurance.

There is usually a cap on insurance.

What is more, if insurance companies have to start actually paying out massive sums, there will be a cap soon enough, and insurance will get more expensive.

She should give the city nothing that limits her. The city should be signing her NDA. She was the wronged party here, not the city. The city's agents abused her. The city is liable and should be held fully accountable.

And everybody else harmed by these two officers' abuse of law should be forming a class action lawsuit against the city.

She should give the city nothing that limits her. The city should be signing her NDA. She was the wronged party here, not the city. The city's agents abused her. The city is liable and should be held fully accountable.

The city is saying that the two detectives violated their policy. It will remain to be seen how much liability is incurred, how strongly the policy was written, whether the officers had been trained in acceptable blood draw policy, etc. The phlebotomist almost certainly had to have had training since in Utah they have to renew their license every two years and he had been doing it a long time.

This is why Payne is fired and his supervisor was only demoted to the ranks.

Anyway, I hope we'll hear more as the case goes to the civil lawsuit phase. I hate it when cases disappear down a rabbit hole and you never hear how they turned out.

Anyway, I hope we'll hear more as the case goes to the civil lawsuit phase. I hate it when cases disappear down a rabbit hole and you never hear how they turned out.

Me too. Life is grey and dull, generally. Someone else's blood in the water spices things up.

Someone else's blood in the water spices things up.

There's a cheerful thought.     : )

"... each of them violating department policy in five separate ways."

Five? Must be bad. Let me guess. He wasn't authorized to draw blood? He broke the law? He was out of his jurisdiction? He had no legal grounds to be in the hospital? He refused to honor hospital policy? He violated the agreement between the department and the hospital?

Naaah.

"The Salt Lake Tribune through a public records request, found both officers violated five policies: conduct unbecoming of an officer; courtesy in public contacts; a policy that states misdemeanor citations should be used instead of arrest ”whenever possible”; violation of the department’s law enforcement code of ethics; and a city-mandated standards of conduct policy."

Bottom line? Under public pressure, he was thrown under the bus and fired for being rude -- after 30 years of service. That's it boys and girls. Nothing beyond that.

They're doing him a favor. Who would want to work for a department like that?

They're doing him a favor. Who would want to work for a department like that?

I doubt that he thinks they were "doing him a favor". LOL

I doubt that he thinks they were "doing him a favor". LOL

Never been fired from a job where you look back years later and conclude it was actually a good thing? He will.

Dumb-ass, chickenshit department which has to invent a bunch of Mickey-Mouse "charges" against a 30-year veteran police officer with a clean record just to satisfy a group of whiny, territorial pussies who make up their own rules.

He was fired for NONE of your speculative reasons. No laws were violated. Oh, had it been that easy and clear cut. But it wasn't. They really had to dig deep to find something.

He was fired for NONE of your speculative reasons. No laws were violated. Oh, had it been that easy and clear cut. But it wasn't. They really had to dig deep to find something.

They are considering whether he might try to sue them. By firing him on these grounds, he has little chance to sue.

Packs of lawyers are involved. They're unlikely to miss a liability trick.

They are considering whether he might try to sue them. By firing him on these grounds, he has little chance to sue.

I'm guessing he was close to retirement anyways. So the city could have put together a generous severance package in exchange for no further legal action.

These "charges" are pretty lame when it comes to using them to actually fire a 30-year veteran and taking away his pension -- "courtesy in public contacts"? Puh-leeze.

I don't think she's going to sue. She's too good natured for that, being a nurse who takes care of people, and probably understands that the people who would pay her would be the taxpayers, not the people who harmed her. She wanted a correction to be made, and it's been made. She's been fully vindicated in the public eye. Police will no longer have access to hospital staff as they did before, so she's a local hero among medical staff throughout here city & state. The cop that arrested her lost not one job but 2 jobs, and he's probably toxic at this point and would not be hired again anywhere else in the country.

If she were to sue, she'd likely lose some of the adoration she has pocketed for life. I may be wrong, but I would bet she will not sue.

"By firing him on these grounds, he has little chance to sue."

These grounds? There are other grounds?

Two investigative agencies had to work day and night for weeks to come up with these five pissant charges. Are you saying they're intentionally sitting on some huge legal charges just to stay out of court? With no proof, of course.

But I guess you have to say that. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that all your speculation was in vain. You were wrong. Worse, you were "NBC wrong".*

*My new phrase for really, really wrong based on nothing.

If she were to sue, she'd likely lose some of the adoration she has pocketed for life.

The recently acquired adoration from strangers she can live without. As for the adoration of friends, co-workers and family? They'll understand her suing. Hell, they're probably encouraging her to sue.

So, I say the whiny bitch will sue for an "undisclosed amount" and f**k the adoration. Can't spend adoration.

She'll sue and you'll justify it.

These "charges" are pretty lame when it comes to using them to actually fire a 30-year veteran and taking away his pension -- "courtesy in public contacts"? Puh-leeze.

I don't think either detective lost any of their pension.

But they could in a civil lawsuit if a big judgment was rendered against them.

These grounds? There are other grounds?

For one thing, they didn't prosecute Detective Phleborapist for false arrest and similar charges. And they clearly could have.

But I guess you have to say that. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that all your speculation was in vain.

This new Whiny Bitch persona really isn't working for you.

You lost. Get over it.

She'll sue and you'll justify it.

She's already justified in suing. All I said is she probably wouldn't do what she is entitled to do. If she does, I wouldn't fault her for it, especially if she used the money to throw a party for her hospital friends.

You're just pissed because a cop got what he deserved.

And they clearly could have.

Maybe they will, maybe not. They still could. Who knows?

Detective Phleborapist

*chuckle*

" they didn't prosecute ... for false arrest and similar charges"

Never occurred to you they couldn't because there wasn't? She was interfering. She needed to be removed from the area. Can't do that with a mere citation. She needed to be "arrested" to be removed. Later, she was freed and not even charged for obstruction.

If he was wrong to arrest her, that's a no-brainer to charge him with that. Plus, there's video! Look! Screams and everything!

But he wasn't wrong and they couldn't charge him.

especially if she used the money to throw a party for her hospital friends.

And if she didn't you'd justify that!

"She's already justified in suing."

Because he was rude??? If that was allowed, people would be suing the Chicago Police Department left and right.

And if she didn't you'd justify that!

Well, golly gee. Let me spell this out for you so it's very easy to understand.

She can do whatever the hell she wants to do, whether suing or not suing. BOTH are justified.

Do you get it yet?

Because he was rude??? If that was allowed, people would be suing the Chicago Police Department left and right.

If the Chicago police are as "rude" as this Utah cop was then they certainly should sue.

She can do whatever the hell she wants to do, whether suing or not suing. BOTH are justified.

I never said otherwise. YOU'RE the one telling us she won't. But if she did, she'd use the money for a party. But if she didn't ... blah, blah, blah.

You're a funny person.

I never said otherwise. YOU'RE the one telling us she won't. But if she did, she'd use the money for a party. But if she didn't ... blah, blah, blah.

hehehe..... yes, and you are the one taking issue with me about what I said as though I'm committing a crime.

You're a funny person.

Well, I try to be entertaining, so thanks.

I don't think she's going to sue. She's too good natured for that, being a nurse who takes care of people, and probably understands that the people who would pay her would be the taxpayers, not the people who harmed her. She wanted a correction to be made, and it's been made. She's been fully vindicated in the public eye. Police will no longer have access to hospital staff as they did before, so she's a local hero among medical staff throughout here city & state. The cop that arrested her lost not one job but 2 jobs, and he's probably toxic at this point and would not be hired again anywhere else in the country.

If she were to sue, she'd likely lose some of the adoration she has pocketed for life. I may be wrong, but I would bet she will not sue.

You're probably right. Sigh. I was hoping for a good old fashioned LYNCHING!

You're probably right. Sigh. I was hoping for a good old fashioned LYNCHING!

Well, maybe they'll make a movie about it. That would be better than suing, and maybe she could make money off of the movie rights.

I was hoping for a good old fashioned LYNCHING!

It's coming. Now that he was fired, she has more ammunition.

Quit whining pussy Boy. If you don't like what the department did. Change it. You make so many excuses for corruption.

After 30 years of dedicated service, he was fired for being rude. And you think that's fair. That's speaks more to your sense of convoluted justice than his.

You should be ashamed.

After 30 years of dedicated service, he was fired for being rude.

Yeah, that's why he was fired .*SMH* I wonder how many times he pulled this shit in those 30 years of "dedicated" service and no one stood up to him.

Do you realize you're the only one on the interwebs defending this prick and it has been pointed out numerous times just how wrong you are but you just can't let go of that fetish you have for anyone in authority.

Cops are gods to paulsen. Even the crimanal and corrupt.

Do you realize you're the only one on the interwebs defending this prick and it has been pointed out numerous times just how wrong you are

Nope. I was 100% right on everything.

Was he charged with violating any local, state or federal laws, as some said? Was he charged with violating the patient's constitutional rights, as many said? Was he charged with operating outside of his jurisdiction, as at least one poster speculated? Was he charged with false arrest? Was he charged with assault and battery? Was he charged with violating departmental policy as it relates to blood draws? No. No. No. No. No. And no.

All these were claimed by you and others. On and on you spewed your venom and outrage at what you claimed he did. But YOU were wrong. Two investigative agencies looked into this and concluded that his only "crime" was being rude. "Courtesy in public contacts"? Give me a break.

I was 100% right on everything.

You're 100% delusional is what you are.

You're 100% delusional is what you are.

Fuck you, you condescending prick. You tell me one thing, just one, that you claimed about his behavior that was true.

You can't. You lied, you speculated, you made things up -- all to fit your never-ending narrative that all cops are bad.

And you continue your slander by asking, "how many times he pulled this shit in those 30 years of "dedicated" service". With ZERO evidence. You are a piece of shit.

"how many times he pulled this shit in those 30 years of "dedicated" service".

I'd estimate at least a few times.

I'd estimate at least a few times.

Based on what evidence? Just pure speculation? Gossip? Rumor? Innuendo?

You're smearing a man's reputation based on that shit? You're a disgusting human being.

I'll ask again, tell me what scurrilous claim you made about this cop that was true. Just one.

You're smearing a man's reputation based on that shit?

What reputation? The guy is an arrogant, sadistic POS who thinks he can get away with anything.

I'd be surprised if this was the only time he was involved in something like this.

Well, what do you know:

SLCPD detective who arrested nurse had been disciplined for alleged sexual harassment and other violations, records show

About four years ago, Payne received a written reprimand for allegedly sexually harassing another department employee “over an extended period of time,” internal police records state.

And in 1995, Payne was found to have violated multiple department policies related to a vehicle pursuit that involved the Utah Highway Patrol. He was suspended 80 hours without pay.

I'd guess he probably has some domestic violence tendencies as well.

Oh. You meant ANY violation of departmental policy over his 30-year career? And you found it wasn't squeaky clean -- one was a vehicle pursuit 22 years ago and one was a 4-year-old, he-said/she-said complaint?

WTF is the relevance to this case? None, asshole. You just like digging up dirt and spreading rumors.

Third request. Give me ONE negative claim you made about this cop that was true. One.

Give me ONE negative claim you made about this cop that was true.

He assaulted a nurse who was doing her job.

He had no warrant or CAUSE to force anyone take a blood draw or do it himself. Oh - and he falsely arrested her.

That's three.

He assaulted a nurse who was doing her job.

If it was assault (rather than a legal arrest), why wasn't he charged with assault?

"He had no warrant or CAUSE to force anyone take a blood draw or do it himself."

First, he never forced her, or attempted to force her, to draw the blood. Second, he never drew the blood. Where's the crime? Where's the violation? Where are the charges?

"Oh - and he falsely arrested her."

If he falsely arrested her, why wasn't he charged with false arrest? Just because she was released after 20 minutes and not charged with obstruction and resisting arrest does not mean it was a false arrest.

The Unified Police Department, the FBI and the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office conducted a criminal investigation. They found nothing.

An Internal Affairs investigation and an independent Police Civilian Review Board found five violations of policy amounting to "being rude".

IF HE DID AS YOU SAID, WHY WASN'T HE CHARGED?