Nurse ! do as the cop says or get arrested

9689 Views 201 Replies 29 Participants Last post by Taurus92, Nov 1, 2017

NTA

Discussion Starter · Sep 1, 2017

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...efusing-blood-sample-police-article-1.3460008

21 - 40 of 202 Posts

Malum Prohibitum

· #21 · Sep 2, 2017 (Edited)

moe mensale said:
Had you been there, what would you have done, if anything? Isn't interference with a cop a crime? What do you think might have happened to you?

In Utah, I do not know the answer of whether it would be a crime. It is not clear. In Georgia? No crime. A third person is privileged to stop an unlawful arrest in Georgia against another, which the law here sees as nothing more than the crime of battery by the officer.

Before you start making sarcastic comments, you should know I have stopped an unlawful arrest in Georgia with the threat of force. The officer backed down at the last second, but I was fully prepared to do what I had to do to stop him. Since we were at a police station, he had all the backup he could want if needed.

Malum Prohibitum

· #22 · Sep 2, 2017

EJR914 said:
You might be a bad cop

And you might be a bad citizen if you stand by and watch, too . . .

Clark

· #23 · Sep 2, 2017

And if it escalated to deadly force, you'd be hunted down like a rabid dog, and the murderers would crawl under the thin blue line and "qualified" immunity.

Mrs_Esterhouse

· #24 · Sep 2, 2017 (Edited)

Malum Prohibitum said:
And you might be a bad citizen if you stand by and watch, too . . .

All that would have happened if one of her coworkers had tried to stop the cop would have been a tazering and/or shooting. If either had happened, the courts would undoubtedly rule in favor of the cops, and our would-be hero, if he survived, would be sitting in prison as a convicted felon.

So, a very high likelihood of being shot and imprisoned for years if one had tried to stop the cop. Doesn't Malum Jr. need his father? Well, alive and out of prison I should say....

NTA

Discussion Starter · #25 · Sep 2, 2017

Pretty obvious these guys are used to doing whatever they want and to whoever.

RedLeg17

· #26 · Sep 2, 2017

It doesn't change the fact he was wrong, but the officer was going to draw the blood himself ... he wasn't arresting her for refusing to do it, he was arresting her for preventing him from doing it. A "third person is privileged to stop an unlawful arrest" is not a very compelling reason for me to get involved in a situation when I'm pretty dim when it comes to the legality of police blood draws.

Mrs_Esterhouse

· #27 · Sep 2, 2017

RedLeg17 said:
It doesn't change the fact he was wrong, but the officer was going to draw the blood himself ...

Cops are authorized to perform medial procedures like drawing blood?

Fallschirmjäger

· #28 · Sep 2, 2017

Mrs_Esterhouse said:
Cops are authorized to perform medical procedures like drawing blood?

Salt Lake Police Department has a program to certify certain officers in phlebotomy so that they may obtain blood samples. Detective Payne has been suspended from that program in light of the above incident.

Now, a question you might ask yourself is ... Why didn't Detective Payne draw the blood himself since he was trained to do so?

Did he perhaps realize the position it would put him in to do so and therefore sought to shift any blame or responsibility onto someone else's shoulders?

AtlPhilip

· #29 · Sep 2, 2017 (Edited)

BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA (2016)

Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests.

(a) Taking a blood sample or administering a breath test is a search governed by the Fourth Amendment.

Nullifier

· #30 · Sep 2, 2017

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

Malum Prohibitum

· #31 · Sep 3, 2017

RedLeg17 said:
It doesn't change the fact he was wrong, but the officer was going to draw the blood himself ... he wasn't arresting her for refusing to do it, he was arresting her for preventing him from doing it. A "third person is privileged to stop an unlawful arrest" is not a very compelling reason for me to get involved in a situation when I'm pretty dim when it comes to the legality of police blood draws.

Where did you get this information, and what exactly did she do to stop him?

Fallschirmjäger

· #32 · Sep 3, 2017

RedLeg17 said:
It doesn't change the fact he was wrong, but the officer was going to draw the blood himself (1) ... he wasn't arresting her for refusing to do it(2), he was arresting her for preventing him from doing it.(3) A "third person is privileged to stop an unlawful arrest" is not a very compelling reason for me to get involved in a situation when I'm pretty dim when it comes to the legality of police blood draws.

I'm not seeing any evidence at all of either (1) or (3) and if the officer's video is accurate it's certainly what he was arresting her for.

IF he was going to draw blood then her refusal to do so is a non-sequitor. And since all she did was contact her superiors for confirmation, I'm not seeing how that hindered his actions in any way. She didn't raise a hand to stop him, nor even interject herself between the officer and the accident victim.

Nullifier

· #33 · Sep 3, 2017

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

Should I keep posting until someone actually reads it?

Nemo

· #34 · Sep 3, 2017

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

Should I keep posting until someone actually reads it?

Maybe we have read it and choose not to squirt in your cornflakes by taking over your arguments.

Why don't you read it and give us a summary. You can copy and post parts you believe are specifically relevant.

If you were daring you could find and post an overall summary of the opinion.

Or are you waiting on someone here to read it and explain it to you, rather than having to do all that work yourself?

Nemo

Malum Prohibitum

· #35 · Sep 3, 2017

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

Should I keep posting until someone actually reads it?

Not until you tell us what it has to do with the arrest of this nurse.

Nullifier

· #36 · Sep 3, 2017

No, because I am not a lawyer and there's no way I could possibly explain it as well as you.

I *think* it has to do with a case regarding implied consent versus informed consent for law-enforcement demanding blood samples. I was hoping someone smarter and more well-versed than me on legal issues could interpret for us.

i'm sorry, I did not mean to sound snarky. Under a lot of stress at the moment and I've been snippy. My apologies!

OWM

· #37 · Sep 3, 2017

Somebody Needed To

Birchfield v. North Dakota
579 US ___ (2016)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary Every state has a law that prohibits motorists from driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeding a specified level. BAC is typically determined by analysis of a blood sample or by using a machine to measure the amount of alcohol in a personâ€™s breath. Implied consent laws require drivers to submit to BAC tests. Originally, the penalty for refusing a test was suspension of the motoristâ€™s license. Some states, including North Dakota and Minnesota, now make it a crime to refuse to undergo testing. In consolidated cases, involving defendants prosecuted under such laws, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests. Breath tests do not implicate significant privacy concerns and are no more intrusive than collecting a DNA sample by rubbing a swab on the inside of a personâ€™s cheek; they leave no biological sample in the governmentâ€™s possession and are not likely to enhance the embarrassment inherent in any arrest. Blood tests, however, require piercing the skin and extract a part of the subjectâ€™s body, giving law enforcement a sample from which it is possible to extract information beyond a BAC reading. By making it a crime to refuse to submit to a BAC test, the laws at issue provide an incentive to cooperate and serve a very important function. Imposing a warrant requirement for every BAC test would likely swamp courts, with little corresponding benefit. The states have no satisfactory justification for demanding the more-intrusive alternative without a warrant. In instances where blood tests might be preferableâ€"e.g., where substances other than alcohol impair the driverâ€™s abilities, or where the subject is unconsciousâ€"nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception, if applicable.

Collapse Summary

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/14-1468/

See less See more

68908

· #38 · Sep 3, 2017

Malum Prohibitum said:
And you might be a bad citizen if you stand by and watch, too . . .

Agreed, and you better know the law and be right, no immunity if you're wrong

68908

· #39 · Sep 3, 2017

Mrs_Esterhouse said:
Cops are authorized to perform medial procedures like drawing blood?

I know for a fact they are not legally, my attorney made that very clear and he's very good.

They need the nurses. Which is why this is so ridiculous

68908

· #40 · Sep 3, 2017

FallschirmjÃ¤ger said:
Salt Lake Police Department has a program to certify certain officers in phlebotomy so that they may obtain blood samples. Detective Payne has been suspended from that program in light of the above incident.

Now, a question you might ask yourself is ... Why didn't Detective Payne draw the blood himself since he was trained to do so?

Did he perhaps realize the position it would put him in to do so and therefore sought to shift any blame or responsibility onto someone else's shoulders?

Wow, that's completely unethical, not shocking, however, I see a huge issue here of evidence tampering possibly here.

Someone outside the loop should be witnessing and signing the seal on that sample.

21 - 40 of 202 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.