Someone correct me if I am wrong, but this is a pretty standard things officers deal with regularly correct?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but this is a pretty standard things officers deal with regularly correct?

 

I can't say for sure how regularly they deal with it, but considering the fact that officer was a part of the department's "blood draw unit", I would think he would be trained to know the basic requirements that have to be met in order to have a person's blood drawn - particularly given the fact that there's a SCOTUS decision establishing the guidelines.

If he has a CDL he signed to give his consent in a case like this when he got his license, right?

 

Guru, in Kentucky what happens if you are involved in a fatal accident and are unconscious at the hospital? The police will be coming for your blood. I looked up the law...

 

"The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth: (1) He or she has given his or her consent to one (1) or more tests of his or her blood, breath, and urine, or combination thereof, for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or presence of a substance which may impair one's driving ability, if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of KRS 189A.010(1) or 189.520(1) has occurred; (2) Any person who is dead, unconscious, or otherwise in a condition rendering him or her incapable of refusal is deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided in subsection (1) of this section, and the test may be given; "

You don't have to follow illegal orders.

 

There will be a lot changes at that Police Department as a result of this.

 

Will there be really, I mean sure on paper, but in reality?

"Any person who holds a CDL is considered to have consented to such testing as is required by any State or jurisdiction in the enforcement of being under the influence of a controlled substance or using alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle. Consent is implied by driving a commercial motor vehicle."

Will there be really, I mean sure on paper, but in reality?

 

If theyre in the wrong they will almost certainly be sued. They'll change things to try and prevent that from happening again.

Will there be really, I mean sure on paper, but in reality?

 

It depends on if they made a mistake or not.

There is an uncut 19 minute video out there from the other officer's body cam. It shows essentially more of the same...the nurse asking whether the man the cops brought in is under arrest or if there is a warrant, cop saying no, nurse saying she can't draw blood without the man's consent, which she is unable to get while he is not conscious.

 

Then there's a bunch of going back and forth with "draw the blood"..."I can't"..."I'm telling you to"..."I can't". Then you see essentially what we see in the video...the nurse calls her supervisor who confirms everything she is saying to the cop, then the cop deciding he's had enough and taking things into his own hands.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCyaEUwLKA0

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but this is a pretty standard things officers deal with regularly correct?

 

I can't say for sure how regularly they deal with it, but considering the fact that officer was a part of the department's "blood draw unit", I would think he would be trained to know the basic requirements that have to be met in order to have a person's blood drawn - particularly given the fact that there's a SCOTUS decision establishing the guidelines.

 

If he has a CDL he signed to give his consent in a case like this when he got his license, right?

 

Guru, in Kentucky what happens if you are involved in a fatal accident and are unconscious at the hospital? The police will be coming for your blood. I looked up the law...

 

"The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth: (1) He or she has given his or her consent to one (1) or more tests of his or her blood, breath, and urine, or combination thereof, for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or presence of a substance which may impair one's driving ability, if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of KRS 189A.010(1) or 189.520(1) has occurred; (2) Any person who is dead, unconscious, or otherwise in a condition rendering him or her incapable of refusal is deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided in subsection (1) of this section, and the test may be given; "

 

"Any person who holds a CDL is considered to have consented to such testing as is required by any State or jurisdiction in the enforcement of being under the influence of a controlled substance or using alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle. Consent is implied by driving a commercial motor vehicle."

 

As hb20 is pointing out everyone, issues like this are strictly a question of law. If the Officer had a legal right to get the blood and someone (anyone) attempted to obstruct his ability to legally get the blood (evidence) then arresting that someone should be within the officer's rights.

 

If the Officer didn't have the legal right to draw the blood then that is going to be a big check with lots of zeros.

If he has a CDL he signed to give his consent in a case like this when he got his license, right?

 

Guru, in Kentucky what happens if you are involved in a fatal accident and are unconscious at the hospital? The police will be coming for your blood. I looked up the law...

 

"The following provisions shall apply to any person who operates or is in physical control of a motor vehicle or a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle in this Commonwealth: (1) He or she has given his or her consent to one (1) or more tests of his or her blood, breath, and urine, or combination thereof, for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or presence of a substance which may impair one's driving ability, if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of KRS 189A.010(1) or 189.520(1) has occurred; (2) Any person who is dead, unconscious, or otherwise in a condition rendering him or her incapable of refusal is deemed not to have withdrawn the consent provided in subsection (1) of this section, and the test may be given; "

 

I have experience with this, we got a search warrant end of story.

 

Think about it, time isn't always an issue because the hospital draws blood so they can best assess and help their patient, the legal process allows the Commonwealth (the Police) to legally get that result.

 

And everyone, I have no idea on the particulars of the case in this thread, I am speaking in general terms.

Id say the smart move here would have been to get a search warrant. Tbh though i haven't watched the video and dont know all of the facts.

I can't say for sure how regularly they deal with it, but considering the fact that officer was a part of the department's "blood draw unit", I would think he would be trained to know the basic requirements that have to be met in order to have a person's blood drawn - particularly given the fact that there's a SCOTUS decision establishing the guidelines.

Right, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't be well aware of the rules.

I have experience with this, we got a search warrant end of story.

 

Think about it, time isn't always an issue because the hospital draws blood so they can best assess and help their patient, the legal process allows the Commonwealth (the Police) to legally get that result.

 

And everyone, I have no idea on the particulars of the case in this thread, I am speaking in general terms.

 

I agree the smart move is always to get a search warrant, but my question is are you REQUIRED by law to?

I agree the smart move is always to get a search warrant, but my question is are you REQUIRED by law to?

 

Probably is my answer but I have learned from experience it depends on the time, place, culture, and the current political makeup of your local judicial system.

From what I understand, the unconscious truck driver in the hospital was hit by another driver who was fleeing police. So the unconscious truck driver was the victim (if that's the right word), and that's why the police didn't have PC and weren't arresting him. The man fleeing the police died in the crash.