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.

 

I know this is on tangent but large truck fatalities often result in multi-million dollar settlements and when you are talking that kind of money every detail is important and to properly investigate, reconstruct, and place fault and financial responsibility for the accident this is need to know information.

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.

 

Figured that was the situation and it helps her case for sure. I now appreciate the readers digest version, but don't trust a lot of news sources when they edit what you see.

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.

 

If that's the case, and I have no reason to think otherwise, why in the world would they be trying to get his blood in the first place?

If that's the case, and I have no reason to think otherwise, why in the world would they be trying to get his blood in the first place?

 

In general terms because the police are tasked with doing a thorough and complete investigation. Furthermore, at an early stage of an investigation, you have to be extremely open-minded and prepared for all possible scenarios.

I know this is on tangent but large truck fatalities often result in multi-million dollar settlements and when you are talking that kind of money every detail is important and to properly investigate, reconstruct, and place fault and financial responsibility for the accident this is need to know information.

 

I assume that's why they wanted this guy's blood then. But I think because he wasn't actually suspected of driving drunk and he was unconscious made getting it a unique hassle in this case.

If that's the case, and I have no reason to think otherwise, why in the world would they be trying to get his blood in the first place?

One example I can think of is if he's fleeing police, truck driver is drunk, runs a stop light and hits the guy fleeing. Guy fleeing is killed. My guess the truck driver is on the hook for the death.

If that's the case, and I have no reason to think otherwise, why in the world would they be trying to get his blood in the first place?

 

Because it's their job to investigate everything when someone dies.

One example I can think of is if he's fleeing police, truck driver is drunk, runs a stop light and hits the guy fleeing. Guy fleeing is killed. My guess the truck driver is on the hook for the death.

 

So anytime someone flees from cops and in the process causes an accident, they treat those they hit like suspects?

 

From Habib's post, the guy in the coma didn't cause the accident, the guy fleeing the police did.

From the article:

 

In Thursday’s news conference, Wubbels’s attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under “implied consent,” according to the Tribune. But Porter said “implied consent” law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels’s arrest unlawful.

So anytime someone flees from cops and in the process causes an accident, they treat those they hit like suspects?

I just think they want to make sure they have all facts / evidence that could be needed, especially when someone is killed.

From the article:

 

In Thursday’s news conference, Wubbels’s attorney Karra Porter said that Payne believed he was authorized to collect the blood under “implied consent,” according to the Tribune. But Porter said “implied consent” law changed in Utah a decade ago. And in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless blood tests were illegal. Porter called Wubbels’s arrest unlawful.

 

I know, quoting my own post.

 

A quick read of the link to that Supreme Court ruling looks like it doesn't specifically address a case like this but again that was a quick read of an article and nothing more.

 

Also from the same article:

 

In a separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas called any distinction between the two types of tests an “arbitrary line in the sand.” Both tests are constitutional without a warrant, he wrote, in part because of the need for police to act quickly when collecting evidence that dissipates as the body metabolizes alcohol.

I just think they want to make sure they have all facts / evidence that could be needed, especially when someone is killed.

 

Yes!!! A thousand times yes!

 

And, it actually protects anyone involved that has nothing to hide.

Yes!!! A thousand times yes!

 

And, it actually protects anyone involved that has nothing to hide.

 

So what you're saying is that if on my way home from work today I'm hit by a vehicle fleeing from the cops, and the fleeing driver dies, even if I'm simply driving along minding my own business, they're legally allowed to force me to submit to a blood test?

So what you're saying is that if on my way home from work today I'm hit by a vehicle fleeing from the cops, and the fleeing driver dies, even if I'm simply driving along minding my own business, they're legally allowed to force me to submit to a blood test?

 

Nope, I am not saying that at all.

I just think they want to make sure they have all facts / evidence that could be needed, especially when someone is killed.

 

Yes!!! A thousand times yes!

 

And, it actually protects anyone involved that has nothing to hide.

 

Nope, I am not saying that at all.

 

Sure sounds like you are....Help me out if not.