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!
  • Saintsfan6

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Oct 6, 2014
    1,464
    38
    Texas
    It's still pending though I think. If it was me I would wait and let the department figure out what they want to do. If their final decision is to do nothing then think about getting a lawyer. But give them the chance to act on their own first.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I agree, she should wait. I just don't have faith that the officer will be prosecuted. Would like to be wrong though.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    can not legally demand a blood draw on said subject unless the subject is under arrest, or the requesting officer or his department, for the blood draw holds a court order stating that a blood draw must be performed on said subject

    First of all, I won't pretend to know the law in Utah. But I will pretend to know the laws here in Louisiana. Secondly, the laws in Louisiana may not match the circumstances in the Utah incident. I am simply trying to engage in a civil discussion regarding Louisiana laws. The Louisiana law stipulates blood can be drawn without a court order from someone who has been detained. If there is probable cause the driver was impaired and a crash occurred that resulted in serious bodily harm or injury, the driver does not have to consent to blood being drawn. Now for the next part, I'm going to alter the circumstances of the Utah incident to fit the circumstances of the Louisiana law so please don't ask me where I got some information not found in any article. The answer is I will have made it up. Let's say an incident in Louisiana occurred that mirrored the incident in Utah. If the cop went to the scene and saw a cold case of beer with 5 beers left in the case and 7 empty cans on the floorboard, an argument could be made that probable cause did exist and a nurse or doctor might be legally obligated to draw blood.

    Utah's laws may be similar to ours. One of the articles mentions the nurse told the cop she could take blood if the cop "declare[d] an intent to arrest the patient." I say similar because the Louisiana law does not require an intent to arrest, only that probable cause exist. It's a fine line but there is a difference. I have included the entire Louisiana statute below.

    =====================================

    Louisiana Revised Statute 32:666. Refusal to submit to chemical test; submission to chemical tests; exception; effects of
    A.(1)(a)(i) When a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or any other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated, that person may not refuse to submit to a chemical test or tests if he has refused to submit to such test or tests on two previous and separate occasions of any previous such violation or in any case wherein a fatality has occurred or a person has sustained serious bodily injury in a crash involving a motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, vessel, or other means of conveyance. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which involves unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death. The law enforcement officer shall direct that a chemical test or tests be conducted of a person's blood, urine, or other bodily substance, or perform a chemical test of such person's breath, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood and the presence of any abused substance or controlled substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964 in his blood in such circumstances. The officer may direct a person to submit to a breath test, and if indicated, an additional blood test for the purpose of testing for the presence of alcohol, abused substances, and controlled dangerous substances. A refusal of any such test or tests shall result in the suspension of driving privileges as provided by the provisions of this Part. A physician, physician assistant, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, emergency medical technician, chemist, nurse practitioner, or other qualified technician shall perform a chemical test in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 32:664 when directed to do so by a law enforcement officer.
    (ii) As used in this Section "law enforcement officer" shall include but not be limited to any commissioned local or state police officer, wildlife enforcement agent, sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, or state park warden.
    (b) The law enforcement officer shall inform the person who is required to submit to such testing of the consequences of a refusal to submit to any testing as required by this Paragraph.
    (c) Any person who refuses to submit to a chemical test as required by the provisions of this Paragraph shall be fined not less than three hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than six months. Imposition or execution of sentence shall not be suspended unless:
    (i) The offender is placed on probation with a minimum condition that he serve two days in jail and participate in a court-approved substance abuse program and participate in a court-approved driver improvement program; or
    (ii) The offender is placed on probation with a minimum condition that he perform four eight-hour days of court-approved community service activities, at least half of which shall consist of participation in a litter abatement or collection program, participate in a court-approved substance abuse program, and participate in a court-approved driver improvement program. An offender who participates in a litter abatement or collection program pursuant to this Subparagraph shall have no cause of action for damages against the entity conducting the program or supervising his participation therein, including a municipality, parish, sheriff, or other entity, nor against any official, employee, or agent of such entity, for any injury or loss suffered by him during or arising out of his participation in the program, if such injury or loss is a direct result of the lack of supervision or act or omission of the supervisor, unless the injury or loss was caused by the intentional or grossly negligent act or omission of the entity or its official, employee, or agent.
    (2) In all cases other than those in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection, a person under arrest for a violation of R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated may refuse to submit to such chemical test or tests, after being advised of the consequences of such refusal as provided for in R.S. 32:661(C), subject to the following:
    (a) His license shall be seized under the circumstances provided in R.S. 32:667.
    (b) If he is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the department shall deny the issuance of a license or permit to such person for a period of six months after the date of the alleged violation.
    (c) Evidence of his refusal shall be admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person, regardless of age, was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any abused substance or controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964. Additionally, evidence of his refusal shall be admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person under twenty-one years of age was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state after having consumed alcoholic beverages. However, such evidence shall not be admissible in a civil action or proceeding other than to suspend, revoke, or cancel his driving privileges.
    (3) In all cases where a person is under arrest for a violation of R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated who refuses to submit to a chemical test or tests if he has refused to submit to a chemical test on two previous and separate occasions of any previous such violation shall be advised that the consequences of such refusal shall be subject to criminal penalties under the provisions of R.S. 14:98.2.
    B. In each instance that a person submits or refuses to submit to a chemical test, after being advised of the consequences of such refusal or submission as provided for in R.S. 32:661(C), the officer shall submit a report in a form approved by the secretary. The officer shall certify that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any abused or illegal controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964, that he had followed the procedure in informing such person of his rights under R.S. 32:661(C), and that such person had submitted to the test or refused to submit to the test upon the request of the officer. In the case of a submission to the test, the officer shall provide complete information regarding the test as may be available at the time the certified report is completed.
    C. In cases where electronic signatures are used, the officer shall affix his electronic signature to the report in the manner approved by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
    D. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 37:961 et seq, a licensed practical nurse shall only withdraw blood as provided by Item (A)(1)(a)(i) of this Section, pursuant to a subpoena or court order.
     

    charlie12

    Not a Fed.
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2008
    8,518
    63
    Pride
    First of all, I won't pretend to know the law in Utah. But I will pretend to know the laws here in Louisiana. Secondly, the laws in Louisiana may not match the circumstances in the Utah incident. I am simply trying to engage in a civil discussion regarding Louisiana laws. The Louisiana law stipulates blood can be drawn without a court order from someone who has been detained. If there is probable cause the driver was impaired and a crash occurred that resulted in serious bodily harm or injury, the driver does not have to consent to blood being drawn. Now for the next part, I'm going to alter the circumstances of the Utah incident to fit the circumstances of the Louisiana law so please don't ask me where I got some information not found in any article. The answer is I will have made it up. Let's say an incident in Louisiana occurred that mirrored the incident in Utah. If the cop went to the scene and saw a cold case of beer with 5 beers left in the case and 7 empty cans on the floorboard, an argument could be made that probable cause did exist and a nurse or doctor might be legally obligated to draw blood.

    Utah's laws may be similar to ours. One of the articles mentions the nurse told the cop she could take blood if the cop "declare[d] an intent to arrest the patient." I say similar because the Louisiana law does not require an intent to arrest, only that probable cause exist. It's a fine line but there is a difference. I have included the entire Louisiana statute below.

    =====================================

    Louisiana Revised Statute 32:666. Refusal to submit to chemical test; submission to chemical tests; exception; effects of
    A.(1)(a)(i) When a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or any other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated, that person may not refuse to submit to a chemical test or tests if he has refused to submit to such test or tests on two previous and separate occasions of any previous such violation or in any case wherein a fatality has occurred or a person has sustained serious bodily injury in a crash involving a motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, vessel, or other means of conveyance. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which involves unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death. The law enforcement officer shall direct that a chemical test or tests be conducted of a person's blood, urine, or other bodily substance, or perform a chemical test of such person's breath, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood and the presence of any abused substance or controlled substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964 in his blood in such circumstances. The officer may direct a person to submit to a breath test, and if indicated, an additional blood test for the purpose of testing for the presence of alcohol, abused substances, and controlled dangerous substances. A refusal of any such test or tests shall result in the suspension of driving privileges as provided by the provisions of this Part. A physician, physician assistant, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, emergency medical technician, chemist, nurse practitioner, or other qualified technician shall perform a chemical test in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 32:664 when directed to do so by a law enforcement officer.
    (ii) As used in this Section "law enforcement officer" shall include but not be limited to any commissioned local or state police officer, wildlife enforcement agent, sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, or state park warden.
    (b) The law enforcement officer shall inform the person who is required to submit to such testing of the consequences of a refusal to submit to any testing as required by this Paragraph.
    (c) Any person who refuses to submit to a chemical test as required by the provisions of this Paragraph shall be fined not less than three hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than six months. Imposition or execution of sentence shall not be suspended unless:
    (i) The offender is placed on probation with a minimum condition that he serve two days in jail and participate in a court-approved substance abuse program and participate in a court-approved driver improvement program; or
    (ii) The offender is placed on probation with a minimum condition that he perform four eight-hour days of court-approved community service activities, at least half of which shall consist of participation in a litter abatement or collection program, participate in a court-approved substance abuse program, and participate in a court-approved driver improvement program. An offender who participates in a litter abatement or collection program pursuant to this Subparagraph shall have no cause of action for damages against the entity conducting the program or supervising his participation therein, including a municipality, parish, sheriff, or other entity, nor against any official, employee, or agent of such entity, for any injury or loss suffered by him during or arising out of his participation in the program, if such injury or loss is a direct result of the lack of supervision or act or omission of the supervisor, unless the injury or loss was caused by the intentional or grossly negligent act or omission of the entity or its official, employee, or agent.
    (2) In all cases other than those in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection, a person under arrest for a violation of R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated may refuse to submit to such chemical test or tests, after being advised of the consequences of such refusal as provided for in R.S. 32:661(C), subject to the following:
    (a) His license shall be seized under the circumstances provided in R.S. 32:667.
    (b) If he is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the department shall deny the issuance of a license or permit to such person for a period of six months after the date of the alleged violation.
    (c) Evidence of his refusal shall be admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person, regardless of age, was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any abused substance or controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964. Additionally, evidence of his refusal shall be admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person under twenty-one years of age was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state after having consumed alcoholic beverages. However, such evidence shall not be admissible in a civil action or proceeding other than to suspend, revoke, or cancel his driving privileges.
    (3) In all cases where a person is under arrest for a violation of R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated who refuses to submit to a chemical test or tests if he has refused to submit to a chemical test on two previous and separate occasions of any previous such violation shall be advised that the consequences of such refusal shall be subject to criminal penalties under the provisions of R.S. 14:98.2.
    B. In each instance that a person submits or refuses to submit to a chemical test, after being advised of the consequences of such refusal or submission as provided for in R.S. 32:661(C), the officer shall submit a report in a form approved by the secretary. The officer shall certify that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any abused or illegal controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964, that he had followed the procedure in informing such person of his rights under R.S. 32:661(C), and that such person had submitted to the test or refused to submit to the test upon the request of the officer. In the case of a submission to the test, the officer shall provide complete information regarding the test as may be available at the time the certified report is completed.
    C. In cases where electronic signatures are used, the officer shall affix his electronic signature to the report in the manner approved by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
    D. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 37:961 et seq, a licensed practical nurse shall only withdraw blood as provided by Item (A)(1)(a)(i) of this Section, pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

    Too bad they didn't draw blood from the drunk off duty BRPD officer that ran over my girlfriend in 2004. He was arrested for DWI and running the stop sign but refused any test. LSP worked the crash.
    The Livingston DA's office kept telling us it was overwhelming evidence in the Trooper's video. Then months later there wasn't enough evidence for the DWI and they wouldn't do him for DWI because the Judges there wanted chemical test.
    The La Highway Safety Comm. had a lot to say about all that and started pushing for the no refusal stuff.
    He kept telling the Trooper in the video "you ruined my career" and the Trooper told him "no I'm doing my job you ruined your career"
    But he was a Corporal then and when he was arrested about two year ago again he was a Lt. so I guess it didn't hurt his career too bad. He's retired now.
    Too bad he got off with it. She still hurts and he still gets drunk.
     

    Kraut

    LEO
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 3, 2007
    1,799
    83
    Slidell, LA
    First of all, I won't pretend to know the law in Utah. But I will pretend to know the laws here in Louisiana. Secondly, the laws in Louisiana may not match the circumstances in the Utah incident. I am simply trying to engage in a civil discussion regarding Louisiana laws. The Louisiana law stipulates blood can be drawn without a court order from someone who has been detained. If there is probable cause the driver was impaired and a crash occurred that resulted in serious bodily harm or injury, the driver does not have to consent to blood being drawn. Now for the next part, I'm going to alter the circumstances of the Utah incident to fit the circumstances of the Louisiana law so please don't ask me where I got some information not found in any article. The answer is I will have made it up. Let's say an incident in Louisiana occurred that mirrored the incident in Utah. If the cop went to the scene and saw a cold case of beer with 5 beers left in the case and 7 empty cans on the floorboard, an argument could be made that probable cause did exist and a nurse or doctor might be legally obligated to draw blood.

    Utah's laws may be similar to ours. One of the articles mentions the nurse told the cop she could take blood if the cop "declare[d] an intent to arrest the patient." I say similar because the Louisiana law does not require an intent to arrest, only that probable cause exist. It's a fine line but there is a difference. I have included the entire Louisiana statute below.

    =====================================

    Louisiana Revised Statute 32:666. Refusal to submit to chemical test; submission to chemical tests; exception; effects of
    A.(1)(a)(i) When a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or any other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated, that person may not refuse to submit to a chemical test or tests if he has refused to submit to such test or tests on two previous and separate occasions of any previous such violation or in any case wherein a fatality has occurred or a person has sustained serious bodily injury in a crash involving a motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, vessel, or other means of conveyance. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which involves unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death. The law enforcement officer shall direct that a chemical test or tests be conducted of a person's blood, urine, or other bodily substance, or perform a chemical test of such person's breath, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood and the presence of any abused substance or controlled substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964 in his blood in such circumstances. The officer may direct a person to submit to a breath test, and if indicated, an additional blood test for the purpose of testing for the presence of alcohol, abused substances, and controlled dangerous substances. A refusal of any such test or tests shall result in the suspension of driving privileges as provided by the provisions of this Part. A physician, physician assistant, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, emergency medical technician, chemist, nurse practitioner, or other qualified technician shall perform a chemical test in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 32:664 when directed to do so by a law enforcement officer.
    (ii) As used in this Section "law enforcement officer" shall include but not be limited to any commissioned local or state police officer, wildlife enforcement agent, sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, or state park warden.
    (b) The law enforcement officer shall inform the person who is required to submit to such testing of the consequences of a refusal to submit to any testing as required by this Paragraph.
    (c) Any person who refuses to submit to a chemical test as required by the provisions of this Paragraph shall be fined not less than three hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than six months. Imposition or execution of sentence shall not be suspended unless:
    (i) The offender is placed on probation with a minimum condition that he serve two days in jail and participate in a court-approved substance abuse program and participate in a court-approved driver improvement program; or
    (ii) The offender is placed on probation with a minimum condition that he perform four eight-hour days of court-approved community service activities, at least half of which shall consist of participation in a litter abatement or collection program, participate in a court-approved substance abuse program, and participate in a court-approved driver improvement program. An offender who participates in a litter abatement or collection program pursuant to this Subparagraph shall have no cause of action for damages against the entity conducting the program or supervising his participation therein, including a municipality, parish, sheriff, or other entity, nor against any official, employee, or agent of such entity, for any injury or loss suffered by him during or arising out of his participation in the program, if such injury or loss is a direct result of the lack of supervision or act or omission of the supervisor, unless the injury or loss was caused by the intentional or grossly negligent act or omission of the entity or its official, employee, or agent.
    (2) In all cases other than those in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection, a person under arrest for a violation of R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated may refuse to submit to such chemical test or tests, after being advised of the consequences of such refusal as provided for in R.S. 32:661(C), subject to the following:
    (a) His license shall be seized under the circumstances provided in R.S. 32:667.
    (b) If he is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, the department shall deny the issuance of a license or permit to such person for a period of six months after the date of the alleged violation.
    (c) Evidence of his refusal shall be admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person, regardless of age, was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any abused substance or controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964. Additionally, evidence of his refusal shall be admissible in any criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while the person under twenty-one years of age was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state after having consumed alcoholic beverages. However, such evidence shall not be admissible in a civil action or proceeding other than to suspend, revoke, or cancel his driving privileges.
    (3) In all cases where a person is under arrest for a violation of R.S. 14:98, 98.1, or other law or ordinance that prohibits operating a vehicle while intoxicated who refuses to submit to a chemical test or tests if he has refused to submit to a chemical test on two previous and separate occasions of any previous such violation shall be advised that the consequences of such refusal shall be subject to criminal penalties under the provisions of R.S. 14:98.2.
    B. In each instance that a person submits or refuses to submit to a chemical test, after being advised of the consequences of such refusal or submission as provided for in R.S. 32:661(C), the officer shall submit a report in a form approved by the secretary. The officer shall certify that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any abused or illegal controlled dangerous substance as set forth in R.S. 40:964, that he had followed the procedure in informing such person of his rights under R.S. 32:661(C), and that such person had submitted to the test or refused to submit to the test upon the request of the officer. In the case of a submission to the test, the officer shall provide complete information regarding the test as may be available at the time the certified report is completed.
    C. In cases where electronic signatures are used, the officer shall affix his electronic signature to the report in the manner approved by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
    D. Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 37:961 et seq, a licensed practical nurse shall only withdraw blood as provided by Item (A)(1)(a)(i) of this Section, pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

    From the working end of it, the current instruction we're operating under regarding blood samples is to obtain a warrant as it is considered more intrusive than breath and/or urine samples. At our department, they're working on getting more officers spooled up on something called Cloud Gavel or some-such to make the process of obtaining the warrant quicker and easier. Even consent is not being considered, if blood is needed the procedure now is to do so by warrant.
     

    WOLFIE

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    34   0   0
    Feb 11, 2012
    977
    18
    Bossier City
    From the working end of it, the current instruction we're operating under regarding blood samples is to obtain a warrant as it is considered more intrusive than breath and/or urine samples. At our department, they're working on getting more officers spooled up on something called Cloud Gavel or some-such to make the process of obtaining the warrant quicker and easier. Even consent is not being considered, if blood is needed the procedure now is to do so by warrant.

    That is not a bad idea.
     

    dantheman

    I despise ARFCOM
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Jan 9, 2008
    7,441
    113
    City of Central
    Had a discussion over the dinner table last night about this situation . My son is a Deputy Sheriff and daughter in law is an RN . They both agree the Detective stepped in it , but will probably live through it . IF the Nurse decided to pursue it she will probably win in court . People LUV Nurses . :D
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    From the working end of it, the current instruction we're operating under regarding blood samples is to obtain a warrant as it is considered more intrusive than breath and/or urine samples. At our department, they're working on getting more officers spooled up on something called Cloud Gavel or some-such to make the process of obtaining the warrant quicker and easier. Even consent is not being considered, if blood is needed the procedure now is to do so by warrant.

    Yes, getting a warrant is preferable to a warrantless search. During a trial, it's always better to say the judge, who is supposed to be well versed on the law, agreed there was probable cause for the search or arrest. As far as Cloud Gavel making things faster and easier, that's true at 2 in the morning. But at 10:00 am, when the judge is in the middle of his session, it can be much faster to walk the warrant into court than it can be waiting for the judge to take a break and address the warrant on Cloud Gavel.

    But while I agree the best practice would be to get a warrant, and the warrant may be part of a department's policy, my post was to show Louisiana law allows for drawing blood without a warrant in circumstances very similar to the ones in Utah. A department's policy may be more restrictive than the law. A cop who makes a decision outside the scope of the departmental policy but within the scope of the law may be disciplined administratively but would not be criminally prosecuted.
     

    Firearmfanatic

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Aug 25, 2016
    2,404
    36
    Acadia Parish
    Brought the wife to the airport this evening to board a plane enroute to Utah as a "legal consultant" concerning this event. From now on, ask me no questions and I will tell you no truth or lies! ;)
     

    charlie12

    Not a Fed.
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2008
    8,518
    63
    Pride
    On the bottom of the barrel I would like to see all the LEO's working the streets to be certified to run the test. I've been listening for years when smaller Depts keep waiting on someone that can run a test or waiting for a Trooper. Too many got rides home when they should have went to jail.
     

    PPBart

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 25, 2012
    714
    16
    Denham Springs, LA
    I agree, she should wait. I just don't have faith that the officer will be prosecuted. Would like to be wrong though.

    I disagree. She should retain a lawyer and let the office and department know that a major lawsuit is pending if their action is deemed inadequate.
     

    Saintsfan6

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Oct 6, 2014
    1,464
    38
    Texas
    I disagree. She should retain a lawyer and let the office and department know that a major lawsuit is pending if their action is deemed inadequate.

    Well put. I meant should wait before she went all "give me the money" on the PD/city.
     

    dantheman

    I despise ARFCOM
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    65   0   0
    Jan 9, 2008
    7,441
    113
    City of Central
    I don't want to see anybody lose their job . When the dust settles , a public apology to the Nurse and all staff that were present would be a start .
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Boy he sure was behaving like a little brat when he didn't get his way.

    I've drawn blood for troopers for about 30 years. Never had a LEO be anything but professional and pleasant.
    The loser in the vid needs some serious schooling. Had the nurse drawn the blood in that instance, any attorney could have easily had it kicked from any case.
    The nurse was not liable either way.
    The cop should forever be banned from law enforcement for too many reasons to count.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Dam people are sue happy. She might just forgive and forget. All the post about her getting paid, that's not everyone's first instinct.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    if I was the nurse, I'd offer an alternative to a suit. Just let me give him an ass whooping free of charge(s) and we could call it even. He was an ******* and treated her like dirt FOR NO REASON! There's got to be a price to pay.

    Supreme Court ruling is a year old, give or take. But it's just the Supreme Court. That don't outweigh a heated decision in the field, right?

    My question: why didn't he just arrest the comatose guy?

    https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews....ut-leave-handcuffing-screaming-nurse-49577197

    Police body-camera video shows Wubbels, who works in the burn unit, calmly explaining that she could not take blood from a patient who had been injured in a deadly car accident, citing a recent change in law. A 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said a blood sample cannot be taken without patient consent or a warrant.
     
    Last edited:

    Firearmfanatic

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Aug 25, 2016
    2,404
    36
    Acadia Parish
    if I was the nurse, I'd offer an alternative to a suit. Just let me give him an ass whooping free of charge(s) and we could call it even. He was an ******* and treated her like dirt FOR NO REASON! There's got to be a price to pay.

    Supreme Court ruling is a year old, give or take. But it's just the Supreme Court. That don't outweigh a heated decision in the field, right?

    My question: why didn't he just arrest the comatose guy?

    https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews....ut-leave-handcuffing-screaming-nurse-49577197

    Police body-camera video shows Wubbels, who works in the burn unit, calmly explaining that she could not take blood from a patient who had been injured in a deadly car accident, citing a recent change in law. A 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said a blood sample cannot be taken without patient consent or a warrant.

    Only comment I am going to make further regarding this issue is, yep!

    "A 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said a blood sample cannot be taken without patient consent or a warrant."

    No "probable cause" or "reason to believe" is included in the ruling. It is all spelled out in black and white in the ruling! ;)
     
    Last edited:

    machinedrummer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 5, 2010
    3,685
    113
    Kingwood, Tx
    When she was placed in the front seat of the unit another officer showed up and proceded to bash her verbally even more. I'm sure over the course of the patients stay in the hospital there would be lots of blood drawn that could have been subpoenaed. Get a warrant. I just don't care for the way she was treated. I'm sure if a deputy showed up with a life threatening injury the staff would not hesitate to give him or her the best care possible. If you want respect, give respect. It's a choice.
     

    Kraut

    LEO
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Oct 3, 2007
    1,799
    83
    Slidell, LA
    While discussing this at roll call, a lieutenant brought up an interesting question when getting a subpoena for the hospital's test results was mentioned, and I wonder if anyone has some prior experience with this end of it and can answer: If you forego a blood draw with an evidence kit and subpoena results from tests that the hospital does as part of their own patient care protocols, does the lack of a normal chain of custody that is documented with an evidence kit subsequently make those results inadmissible in court proceedings? Not having worked in a hospital lab, I don't know how complete their documentation would be, such as who drew the blood, did they then turn it over directly to another documented person to bring it to the lab, is each tube tested documented as to who received it and ran the test? I know that many ERs have vac-tube systems to send stuff to the lab, so whoever puts it into the tube doesn't know specifically who is receiving it on the other end, so despite it being a relatively closed system, would it still pass muster for chain of custody for such results to be used in court proceedings should something come to a criminal case, or even high-stakes civil litigation?
     

    sliguns

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

    Staff online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,225
    Messages
    1,546,099
    Members
    29,169
    Latest member
    LanceK
    Top Bottom