Nurse In Utah Gets Arrested For Doing Her Job

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Firearmfanatic

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Aug 25, 2016
    2,404
    36
    Acadia Parish
    Thanks 5star. Its been asked 3 different ways now. Hopefully an answer/theory/insight will come along shortly.

    Does not matter if the person is a victim or not, or the reason for wanting to draw a blood sample from the person for whatever reason. The 2016 Supreme Court ruling dictates that no blood can be drawn from the person for any reason unless the person in question gives consent or a warrant has been issued for a blood sample to be drawn from the person!
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    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?

    Ok. They had the victim's consent. He gave consent when he got his CDL. The ruling talked about the fourth amendment with regard to having the liberty to drive. The ruling stated a blood test was too invasive and the rights lost in exchange for the right to drive a car were too great for someone to be criminally punished if they refuse the blood test. But a person does not have to have a CDL to drive a car on the road. Therefore, implied consent can stand with respect to a CDL and still allow the person to drive a car on the road. Are you trying to say the requirements for getting a CDL should be the same as the requirements for getting a regular drivers license?

    And I've not said the cop's actions were right or wrong. All I've said is that his reasoning may not be as off as some people believe.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    cyclone1970

    Oldie
    Premium Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 10, 2014
    408
    43
    Covington LA
    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!

    I know you have to walk a fine line with this, since your spouse is involved, but I am grateful for your updates. Also, beyond the legal issues, the arrest should have been done in a dignified professional manner, not the aggressive take-down we saw. The law enforcement officer that did it that way trashed many other policemen with his actions.
     
    Last edited:

    5star

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 11, 2008
    319
    16
    West baton rouge
    Ok. Up to now, I understand what you guys are saying, BUT... what I don't get is that this guy is just driving down the road and gets hit by someone. So he's a victim right? Why is his blood in question to begin with? Are they trying to find this guy guilty of being drunk or on drugs or something? What's the point? What's to gain?
     
    Last edited:

    charlie12

    Not a Fed.
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2008
    8,518
    63
    Pride
    Ok. Up to now, I understand what you guys are saying, BUT... what I don't get is that this guy is just driving down the road and gets hit by someone. So he's a victim right? Why is his blood in question to begin with? Are they trying to find this guy guilty of being drunk or on drugs or something? What's the point? What's to gain?

    I'm sure someone will be along to give a better answer but I think that if its a really serious injury or death both drivers are tested
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Ok. Up to now, I understand what you guys are saying, BUT... what I don't get is that this guy is just driving down the road and gets hit by someone. So he's a victim right? Why is his blood in question to begin with? Are they trying to find this guy guilty of being drunk or on drugs or something? What's the point? What's to gain?

    I don't believe an official explanation was ever given. From what I remember reading, he was a cop in a nearby town or city. He may have been known to the detective. That may have been a factor in the detective's decision. But I don't recall reading an official reason.
     

    sliguns

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2014
    1,149
    38
    louisiana
    Ok. Up to now, I understand what you guys are saying, BUT... what I don't get is that this guy is just driving down the road and gets hit by someone. So he's a victim right? Why is his blood in question to begin with? Are they trying to find this guy guilty of being drunk or on drugs or something? What's the point? What's to gain?

    here's a theory I read...this crash was the result of a police chase gone bad...

    I think the cops were hoping the truck driver had drugs or alcohol in his system so they could blame the accident on him. I think they know that if a chase endangers the public, it should be discontinued. This chase resulted in a fatality and one badly burned bystander…..they wanted to share the blame. This explains why the cops were so eager to capture the truck drivers blood.
     

    sliguns

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2014
    1,149
    38
    louisiana
    Ok. They had the victim's consent. He gave consent when he got his CDL.

    Effective 5/9/2017
    41-6a-520. Implied consent to chemical tests for alcohol or drug -- Number of tests -- Refusal -- Warning, report.
    (1)
    (a) A person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, urine, or oral fluids for the purpose of determining whether the person was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while:
    (i) having a blood or breath alcohol content statutorily prohibited under Section 41-6a-502, 41-6a-530, or 53-3-231;
    (ii) under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or combination of alcohol and any drug under Section 41-6a-502; or
    (iii) having any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance in the person's body in violation of Section 41-6a-517.
    (b) A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).

    Source: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S520.html?v=C41-6a-S520_2017050920170509


    I believe the officer admitted in the video that he did not believe the bold above applied to this patient, therefore the implied consent goes away.


    Was glad to see the cop at least lose his job with the ambulance company.
     
    Last edited:

    buttanic

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2010
    1,254
    63
    LaPlace, LA
    Seems I read that the injured man was known and had some connection to the police department and was known to the officer and the officer wanted the blood as proof that the injured man was not under the influence. Doesn't make sense, if he was the victim and not at fault there would be no need.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I believe the officer admitted in the video that he did not believe the bold above applied to this patient, therefore the implied consent goes away.


    Was glad to see the cop at least lose his job with the ambulance company.

    If a person is driving a vehicle where a CDL is required, they must follow all of the rules pertaining to a CDL. You posted the law for the regular driver's license. A CDL is an "enhanced" driver's license, meaning you can do more with it but you are subject to more rules and responsibilities. One of the rules is the law I posted. If the patient was driving a vehicle that required a CDL, you must also look at the laws pertaining to the CDL.

    It you have a Louisiana concealed handgun permit, it is good in multiple states. But the law in different states may be different. A particular law may apply in both states while one state may have a more restrictive law than some other state. You have to follow the laws in the state you are in. That's similar to the patient's situation. The vehicle he was driving determines the laws that apply to him.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Seems I read that the injured man was known and had some connection to the police department and was known to the officer and the officer wanted the blood as proof that the injured man was not under the influence. Doesn't make sense, if he was the victim and not at fault there would be no need.

    In some cases, an impaired driver could be viewed as at fault or partially at fault simply because they were driving impaired. That's against the law so they should not have even been there while in an impaired state.
     

    bigtattoo79

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    94   0   0
    Sep 12, 2009
    3,951
    63
    LA
    Also, beyond the legal issues, the arrest should have been done in a dignified professional manner, not the aggressive take-down we saw. The law enforcement officer that did it that way trashed many other policemen with his actions.

    She also pulled her hands away and started backing away from the officer. Had she complied the arrest may have gone much quieter "also that was not an aggressive take down lol".
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    "Having concluded that the search incident to arrest doctrine does not justify the warrantless taking of a blood sample, we must address respondents’ alternative argu*ment that such tests are justified based on the driver’s legally implied consent to submit to them. It is well estab*lished that a search is reasonable when the subject con*sents, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 219 (1973), and that sometimes consent to a search need not be express but may be fairly inferred from context, cf. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, ___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 6–7); Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U. S. 307, 313 (1978). Our prior opinions have referred approvingly to the gen*eral concept of implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply. See, e.g., McNeely, supra, at ___ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 18); Neville, supra, at 560. Peti*tioners do not question the constitutionality of those laws, and nothing we say here should be read to cast doubt on them.
    It is another matter, however, for a State not only to insist upon an intrusive blood test, but also to impose criminal penalties on the refusal to submit to such a test. There must be a limit to the consequences to which motor*ists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a deci*sion to drive on public roads."

    The above is text from the Supreme Court decision regarding warrantless blood draws and implied consent. The SC state a search is reasonable when consent exists and that consent need not be expressed but can be inferred. The SC also approves of implied-consent laws resulting in civil or evidentiary consequences for those who refuse the tests. The SC makes it clear they are not stating implied-consent laws are unconstitutional. The state cannot insist on a blood test with criminal penalties as a consequence of refusal. That consequence is too much in exchange for being allowed to drive on the road.

    So it appears the implied consent laws are constitutional. The blood test cannot be the only test the state will accept but it can be one of them.

    With the SC ruling in mind, a warrantless blood draw from the truck driver would be constitutional and legal as the driver had previously given consent. The Utah law lists the forfeiture of the CDL as a consequence for any refusal. That is not a criminal offense and permissible according to the SC. Due to the circumstances, the driver being unconscious and unable to submit to a breath test, the blood test would have been the only option. If that is the case, the detective's decision to draw blood may not have been wrong. Again, I'm not speaking about his actions after the nurse refused to allow the blood draw. I'm simply referring to the decision to draw blood.

    Please, if someone feels I'm reading this wrong, provide a different interpretation of the SC decision.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf
     

    sliguns

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2014
    1,149
    38
    louisiana
    If a person is driving a vehicle where a CDL is required, they must follow all of the rules pertaining to a CDL. You posted the law for the regular driver's license. A CDL is an "enhanced" driver's license, meaning you can do more with it but you are subject to more rules and responsibilities. One of the rules is the law I posted. If the patient was driving a vehicle that required a CDL, you must also look at the laws pertaining to the CDL.

    53-3-418. Prohibited alcohol level for drivers -- Procedures, including hearing.
    (1) A person who holds or is required to hold a CDL may not drive a commercial motor vehicle in this state if the person:
    (a) has sufficient alcohol in the person's body that a subsequent chemical test shows that the person has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .04 grams or greater at the time of the test after the alleged driving of the commercial motor vehicle;
    (b) is under the influence of alcohol, any drug, or the combined influence of alcohol and any drug to degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a commercial motor vehicle; or
    (c) has a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .04 grams or greater at the time of driving the commercial motor vehicle.
    (2) A person who holds or is required to hold a CDL and who drives a commercial motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given the person's consent to a test or tests of the person's blood, breath, or urine to determine the concentration of alcohol or the presence of other drugs in the person's physical system.
    (3) If a peace officer or port-of-entry agent has reasonable cause to believe that a person may be violating this section, the peace officer or port-of-entry agent may request the person to submit to a chemical test to be administered in compliance with Section 41-6a-515.


    It appears we find ourselves in the same situation.
     

    sliguns

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2014
    1,149
    38
    louisiana
    She also pulled her hands away and started backing away from the officer. Had she complied the arrest may have gone much quieter "also that was not an aggressive take down lol".

    Had the officer just complied with her direction, the situation would have gone much quieter.


    She doesn't have to comply with an illegal kidnapping...i mean...unlawful detainment, to begin with.
     

    bigtattoo79

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    94   0   0
    Sep 12, 2009
    3,951
    63
    LA
    Had the officer just complied with her direction, the situation would have gone much quieter.


    She doesn't have to comply with an illegal kidnapping...i mean...unlawful detainment, to begin with.

    I agree.

    However I would have turned around got arrested and contacted my lawyer easy as that. Her kicking and crying didn't prevent her from being arrested did it?
     

    sliguns

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2014
    1,149
    38
    louisiana
    I agree.

    However I would have turned around got arrested and contacted my lawyer easy as that. Her kicking and crying didn't prevent her from being arrested did it?

    No of course not (same goes for your scenario), but was that even the goal to begin with? I don't think it was, however, it did play well in the court of public opinion and further exposed the immoral actions involved....imo
     

    bigtattoo79

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    94   0   0
    Sep 12, 2009
    3,951
    63
    LA
    No of course not (same goes for your scenario), but was that even the goal to begin with? I don't think it was, however, it did play well in the court of public opinion and further exposed the immoral actions involved....imo

    To be clear: I think the arrest was unjustified.

    But resisting a LEO that "thinks" he's justified in arresting you could go sideways quickly. I will always just comply then sort it out after.

    However the kicking and screaming will surely get her a bigger pay day lol.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom