So then the officer was right, the nurse was right, which makes @theguru right.

 

LEO was not right and the Mayor and Police Chief statement admit as such. Implied consent was tossed in UT over a decade ago and by Supreme Court a year ago. There can be consequences for failing to provide a blood sample (if you're conscious), but that doesn't mean if you can't consent they have the right to draw blood.

 

Think of the drunk driving example. By driving you recognize (impliedly consent) that if you are pulled over and refuse to take a breathalyzer or field sobriety test you might get your license suspended for doing so. That doesn't mean the LEO can jam the breathalyzer into your pie-hole and force a reading.

 

On the process side, the LEO should be trained to de-escalate. Instead, he remarkably escalated the situation and allowed it to spiral due to his apparent power trip and inability to deal with being told "no." As others have pointed out, it is very likely blood was drawn and would be available for further tests and someone on the "blood draw unit" should know that. That also cuts against the "spoliation" argument.

I'm way, way late to the thread, but this is a grossly unlawful, Gestapo-type abuse of power by the officer that should be met with criminal sanctions. The thin blue line needs to cut this one loose.

Good call, add HIPPA into the mix of competing laws, rules, procedures, policies, etc... And, the "right thing" is subject to interpretation and her supervisors are like the officer's supervisors, a non-factor.

 

Again, what is the Law?

 

The Police believed they had a right/duty to do something and the Hospital believed they had a right/duty to do something. Those "somethings" conflicted with each other and there has to be a rule of Law that settles it and I can guarantee you it is not Hospital Policy or Police Policy, a Hospital Supervisor or a Police Supervisor, or that Nurse or that Officer.

 

Justify? I have already said twice if the Officer did not have a legal right to make an arrest I think he should be fired. Do you want a pound of flesh from me too?

 

The 4th amendment is the law.

The 4th amendment is the law.

 

I wish it was that simple.

This situation could bring out a lot of debate on laws and contitutional restrictions.

 

But at the end of the day it evident the officer used his power of arrest as a pure intimidation and scare action. He cited no statute, he declared no law broken, he was simply using and abusing a power granted to him to be a bully. The discipline needs to be stern here.

 

Reminds me of the cop in the Duke lacrosse case.

He had zero grounds to arrest her and he was asking her to violate the patients 4th amendment rights.

 

Are police officers required to do CE's?

He had zero grounds to arrest her and he was asking her to violate the patients 4th amendment rights.

 

Are police officers required to do CE's?

 

He didn't technically arrest her and he didn't ask her to do anything. He was going to draw the blood himself.

 

With that said, he was wrong to treat her the way he did. I'm not sure if he could have legally taken the blood or not, but handcuffing her was unnecessary regardless.

 

He should probably be fired for that alone. I'll be interested to see it play out.

He didn't technically arrest her and he didn't ask her to do anything. He was going to draw the blood himself.

 

With that said, he was wrong to treat her the way he did. I'm not sure if he could have legally taken the blood or not, but handcuffing her was unnecessary regardless.

 

He should probably be fired for that alone. I'll be interested to see it play out.

 

1:18 - 'you're under arrest.'

1:43 - cuffed.

 

She may not have been formally booked. But she was put under physical arrest without statement of reason or citing a law. She was not simply detained as one would be in a traffic stop. Even if you are detained there has to be a reason and that reason must be given if requested. That part IS protected by the 4th.

 

 

[video=youtube;ihQ1-LQOkns]

1:18 - 'you're under arrest.'

1:43 - cuffed.

 

She may not have been formally booked. But she was put under physical arrest without statement of reason or citing a law. She was not simply detained as one would be in a traffic stop. Even if you are detained there has to be a reason and that reason must be given if requested. That part IS protected by the 4th.

 

 

[video=youtube;ihQ1-LQOkns]

 

I don't want to get deep into it but it is a gray area.

 

It is really all semantics anyway because he detained her.

Lastly, the patient most certainly had blood work already done from which a drug screen could be added (if not already done), so there was no rush to get "evidence". Blood drawn for routine testing is kept by the lab for up to a week. The hospital already had his blood, so all the police had to do was get a warrant.

 

This! 1000 times this.

 

Switching gears, this area of law still needs to evolve. In this case the victim/patient, William Gay, is a reserve police officer in Utah and a CDL holding truck driver.

 

I am pretty sure William Gay would have WANTED his blood taken. In other words, everyone seems to agree the right course of action was not to allow the blood draw but from a legal and a professional standpoint he is much better off with the blood evidence being taken.

 

On the other side, medically speaking I strongly assume allowing anyone non-essential near William Gay was not in his best interests.

 

The question I would like everyone to answer is what is in William Gay's best interests? And with the law in its current form does it serve William Gay's best interests?

I also found this looking around:

 

RIGBY — On July 26 of this year, one of our reserve officers, William Gray, was the victim in a horrific accident in northern Utah while working his full-time job as a truck driver.

 

The suspect in this incident was fleeing from Utah State Highway Patrol, when he crossed into oncoming traffic and collided head on with Gray’s truck, severely injuring Gray and killing himself. Officer Gray was flown to the University of Utah’s burn unit where he remains under their watchful, professional, and competent care.

 

Within the first hours of Officer Gray being admitted into the burn unit, an incident occurred between hospital staff and an officer from an agency in Utah who was assisting with the investigation.

 

The Rigby Police Department was not aware of this incident until Aug. 31, 2017.

 

The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act.

 

Rigby police chief thanks Utah nurse for 'standing firm' in protecting his officer - East Idaho News

1:18 - 'you're under arrest.'

1:43 - cuffed.

 

She may not have been formally booked. But she was put under physical arrest without statement of reason or citing a law. She was not simply detained as one would be in a traffic stop. Even if you are detained there has to be a reason and that reason must be given if requested. That part IS protected by the 4th.

 

 

[video=youtube;ihQ1-LQOkns]

 

I said technically. By definition he did not arrest her. He detained her.

 

Regardless, if he didn't have a right to detain her (i dont think he did) hes still wrong and will face consequences.

He didn't technically arrest her and he didn't ask her to do anything. He was going to draw the blood himself.

 

With that said, he was wrong to treat her the way he did. I'm not sure if he could have legally taken the blood or not, but handcuffing her was unnecessary regardless.

 

He should probably be fired for that alone. I'll be interested to see it play out.

 

He used his version of placing someone under arrest. He didn't even have enough to detain her if we want to go down that road.

 

He had no right to draw blood from the person in question. Just like all of us on here has no right to draw blood from whoever we want.

Question, sort of related to this situation.

 

If a local LEO (city or county) is arresting someone and quite clearly is in the wrong and/or on a power trip, would a bystander or interested party be able to call the State Police to come in and take control of the situation and either difuse it or potentially take the city/county LEO in to custody if he finds violations? Or is that a situation where you ride out the power trip and contact a lawyer when the opportunity presents itself?

Question, sort of related to this situation.

 

If a local LEO (city or county) is arresting someone and quite clearly is in the wrong and/or on a power trip, would a bystander or interested party be able to call the State Police to come in and take control of the situation and either difuse it or potentially take the city/county LEO in to custody if he finds violations? Or is that a situation where you ride out the power trip and contact a lawyer when the opportunity presents itself?

 

Heck the nurse has that question, her own hospital police stood around and let this officer take her unlawfully.