Nurse In Utah Gets Arrested For Doing Her Job

thperez1972 · Sep 8, 2017

sliguns said:
Here's a good rebuttal to that article...

Yes, it is a good rebuttal. It also acknowledges something a number of people don't seem to understand. There are circumstances where blood can be drawn without consent and without a warrant. The article I posted did bring up an interesting point not mentioned in the rebuttal. Is there implied consent by having a CDL in Utah? The handbook put out by the states indicates there is and it is listed in the state law. Would that satisfy the "consent, warrant, or exigent circumstances" requirement?

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title53/Chapter3/53-3-S418.html

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
No. 14–1468. Argued April 20, 2016—Decided June 23, 2016*

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-forced-blood-draws/

fng · Sep 8, 2017

thperez1972 said:
Yes, it is a good rebuttal. It also acknowledges something a number of people don't seem to understand. There are circumstances where blood can be drawn without consent and without a warrant. The article I posted did bring up an interesting point not mentioned in the rebuttal. Is there implied consent by having a CDL in Utah? The handbook put out by the states indicates there is and it is listed in the state law. Would that satisfy the "consent, warrant, or exigent circumstances" requirement?

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title53/Chapter3/53-3-S418.html

will be in an interesting case ..if it goes to court..
I am curious as to when implied consent of a cdl holder driving a commercial vehicle could force a health care worker to draw blood..didn't see it in the statute. Maybe he didn't try to get a warrant because there were no grounds for one? maybe so, maybe not. I can say that the overwhelming majority of cops do make tough decisions, all day long and get it right the majority of the time. I along with many others support LEO's but this clown effed up and should be held accountable. If he was any good at his job, he could have easily gotten that sample without causing all of the headaches he undoubtedly caused for himself and his dept.

Deerslayer440 · Sep 8, 2017

Please go by the actual laws,not by what the media says.

None of those articles mentioned the person in question was an LEO.

I don't get why that is being swept under the rug,nor the fact of
interfering with a patient in a hospital laws.

This false media fact reporting has to stop.I hope the new law is
voted in and goes into effect soon about the media false reporting
facts!!I don't understand how the media isn't being held responsible
for false facts.Anyone else would be sued.

thperez1972 · Sep 8, 2017

fng said:
will be in an interesting case ..if it goes to court..
I am curious as to when implied consent of a cdl holder driving a commercial vehicle could force a health care worker to draw blood..didn't see it in the statute. Maybe he didn't try to get a warrant because there were no grounds for one? maybe so, maybe not. I can say that the overwhelming majority of cops do make tough decisions, all day long and get it right the majority of the time. I along with many others support LEO's but this clown effed up and should be held accountable. If he was any good at his job, he could have easily gotten that sample without causing all of the headaches he undoubtedly caused for himself and his dept.

From what I understand, the cop was in a blood unit and wasn't trying to get the nurse to draw blood. The nurse was blocking the cop from drawing blood.

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

Deerslayer440 said:
Please go by the actual laws,not by what the media says.

None of those articles mentioned the person in question was an LEO.

I don't get why that is being swept under the rug,nor the fact of
interfering with a patient in a hospital laws.

This false media fact reporting has to stop.I hope the new law is
voted in and goes into effect soon about the media false reporting
facts!!I don't understand how the media isn't being held responsible
for false facts.Anyone else would be sued.

thperez1972 said:
From what I understand, the cop was in a blood unit and wasn't trying to get the nurse to draw blood. The nurse was blocking the cop from drawing blood.

This is the law nationwide:
BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
No. 14–1468. Argued April 20, 2016—Decided June 23, 2016*

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sup...d-blood-draws/

Regardless if in an ER, blood unit, blood bank, crack house, whore house, on a street corner and regardless of who is drawing the blood sample!

thperez1972 · Sep 8, 2017

Firearmfanatic said:
This is the law nationwide:
BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
No. 14–1468. Argued April 20, 2016—Decided June 23, 2016*

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sup...d-blood-draws/

Regardless if in an ER, blood unit, blood bank, crack house, whore house, on a street corner and regardless of who is drawing the blood sample!

From the nationwide law:
"In instances where blood tests might be preferable--e.g., where substances other than alcohol impair the driver's ability to operate a car safely, or where the subject is unconscious--nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception if it applies."

From what I read, the ruling states that someone cannot be criminally punished for refusing to submit to a blood test. I could not find anywhere where the ruling stated the person is forbidden to provide consent to have his blood drawn. And the driver in question who gave his implied consent did not do so in exchange for being allowed to simply drive on the road. He gave it in exchange for his CDL. Without his CDL, he would still be allowed to drive on the roads, just not in a commercial capacity. So while you want to repeatedly post the Supreme Court case, one can easily argue it may not apply to this case.

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

thperez1972 said:
From the nationwide law:
"In instances where blood tests might be preferable--e.g., where substances other than alcohol impair the driver's ability to operate a car safely, or where the subject is unconscious--nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception if it applies."

From what I read, the ruling states that someone cannot be criminally punished for refusing to submit to a blood test. I could not find anywhere where the ruling stated the person is forbidden to provide consent to have his blood drawn. And the driver in question who gave his implied consent did not do so in exchange for being allowed to simply drive on the road. He gave it in exchange for his CDL. Without his CDL, he would still be allowed to drive on the roads, just not in a commercial capacity. So while you want to repeatedly post the Supreme Court case, one can easily argue it may not apply to this case.

Go back and read it again. The ruling has nothing to do with who can be or can not be criminally punished for not submiting to a blood test. The ruling deals with the what is legal and what is not legal when it comes to drawing blood samples. And yes, the Supreme Court ruling does most definitely apply in this case! Where did you say you got your jurist doctorate from? :rolleyes:

thperez1972 · Sep 8, 2017

Firearmfanatic said:
Go back and read it again. The ruling has nothing to do with who can be or can not be criminally punished for not submiting to a blood test. The ruling deals with the what is legal and what is not legal when it comes to drawing blood samples. And yes, the Supreme Court ruling does most definitely apply in this case! Where did you say you got your jurist doctorate from?

Which part should I read again?

Redd508 · Sep 8, 2017

Maybe i just missed it but if this guy is the victim in an auto accident then why is his blood sample worth all of this drama?

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

thperez1972 said:
Which part should I read again?

All 67 pages of the ruling. If you would like, pm me your email address and I will send you a pdf copy of the Supreme Court ruling.

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

Redd508 said:
Maybe i just missed it but if this guy is the victim in an auto accident then why is his blood sample worth all of this drama?

Why? Because of way too many keyboard warriors without any legal education/licensing/training or knowledge and wanting to vet info that they claim is correct/legal but in is in fact incorrect/illegal and has been been proven in courts by actual cases and also ruled on by the Supreme Court!

thperez1972 · Sep 8, 2017

Firearmfanatic said:
All 67 pages of the ruling. If you would like, pm me your email address and I will send you a pdf copy of the Supreme Court ruling.

Oh that part. That part appears to back up what I said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

Rea

thperez1972 said:
Oh that part. That part appears to back up what I said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reading comprehension is not one of your better traits is it?
I give up since those who refuse to understand will never understand.

Redd508 · Sep 8, 2017

Firearmfanatic said:
Why? Because of way too many keyboard warriors without any legal education/licensing/training or knowledge and wanting to vet info that they claim is correct/legal but in is in fact incorrect/illegal and has been been proven in courts by actual cases and also ruled on by the Supreme Court!

Keyboard warriors didnt assault a nurse over a blood sample. What is the motivation for the Utah PD to take it this far?

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

Redd508 said:
Keyboard warriors didnt assault a nurse over a blood sample. What is the motivation for the Utah PD to take it this far?

I was referring to those who chose to reply to this thread with out any, no, or very little legal training, education, or understanding of laws, or what happens in the legal system, etc. In other words, they probably stayed at a holiday inn last night or a few nights ago!
The azz hat utah detective that decided to be a prick against the nurse should take a legal, civil, and finacial hit!
My wife is in utah working on that issue right now!

And since I am too close to this issue and should not be posting about it, I will not be posting about it any more so there will be no conflict of interest here or in the nurse's claim!

5star · Sep 8, 2017

What he is asking is if the man in question is a victim in this case, then why do they want his blood in the first place??

thperez1972 · Sep 8, 2017

Firearmfanatic said:
Rea

Reading comprehension is not one of your better traits is it?
I give up since those who refuse to understand will never understand.

I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. If I've missed something in the ruling, I don't have a problem revising my opinion. The issue is that you haven't really said anything. I looked over this case and the ruling then stated what I did. I explained why this case could be viewed as different from the Supreme Court case. I even went so far as to look up the Utah law covering implied consent for people with a CDL.

Your reaction was to disagree with my post without explaining why. I'm not sure how you can accurately say people refuse to understand when you would state what you want them to understand.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Firearmfanatic · Sep 8, 2017

thperez1972 said:
I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. If I've missed something in the ruling, I don't have a problem revising my opinion. The issue is that you haven't really said anything. I looked over this case and the ruling then stated what I did. I explained why this case could be viewed as different from the Supreme Court case. I even went so far as to look up the Utah law covering implied consent for people with a CDL.

Your reaction was to disagree with my post without explaining why. I'm not sure how you can accurately say people refuse to understand when you would state what you want them to understand.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Supreme Court findings/rulings will and will always over rule any and all state laws, ordinances, torts, when and if a contest is brought before the Supreme Court and the court rules against the state law in question. I can not understand why you do not understand that the utah officer in this case is in the wrong! The Supreme Court ruling in 2016 specifically states that no blood may be drawn from a "victim" by anyone without the "victim's" consent regardless if concious or not without a warrant. What do you not understand about that?

Redd508 · Sep 8, 2017

5star said:
What he is asking is if the man in question is a victim in this case, then why do they want his blood in the first place??

Thanks 5star. Its been asked 3 different ways now. Hopefully an answer/theory/insight will come along shortly.

Nurse In Utah Gets Arrested For Doing Her Job

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

ESSAYONS

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

*Banned*

ESSAYONS

*Banned*

ESSAYONS

*Banned*

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

*Banned*

*Banned*

ESSAYONS

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

Log in

Forum statistics

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned