http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/31/ut...us-victim/

This bully is still on duty. He should be criminally charged and lose his pension. So should the other security officers who watched it.

Is there anything a police officer can do, even when clearly in the wrong, that results in a criminal conviction? In this case, the officer is still on duty.

(09-01-2017 12:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/31/ut...us-victim/

This bully is still on duty. He should be criminally charged and lose his pension. So should the other security officers who watched it.

Is there anything a police officer can do, even when clearly in the wrong, that results in a criminal conviction? In this case, the officer is still on duty.

She should sue her boss who was on the phone. He was the one who set off the police officer. Real jerk challenging a police officer over the phone while his employee was face to face.

You, as typical, grossly exaggerate in your headline. He didn't assault her. She did resist arrest, which is breaking a law, but he did not use excessive force (it was pretty minimal). Now he probably had no legitimate basis for arresting her. But that is grounds for a civil lawsuit. There was nothing the police officer did illegal. He just used poor judgement and lost his temper at the nurse's arrogant boss.

I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Found a picture of the hospital's legal counsel:

The proper thing to do when the medical professional calls their boss on a medical ethics/constitutional issue disagreement with you.....and their boss agrees?

Call YOUR boss or counsel before instigating a bull rush.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Id retire off the law suit cash. THIS is why the police garner distrust from the public.

Police departments should have some way for officers to contact a legal professional for advice in situations like this. The officer obviously did not know the law and simply made up schit as he went along. One phone call could have avoided this entire incident.

(09-01-2017 02:12 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Id retire off the law suit cash. THIS is why the police garner distrust from the public.

Police departments should have some way for officers to contact a legal professional for advice in situations like this. The officer obviously did not know the law and simply made up schit as he went along. One phone call could have avoided this entire incident.

Don't the cops have access to assistant district attorney in these situations?

(09-01-2017 02:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:12 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Id retire off the law suit cash. THIS is why the police garner distrust from the public.

Police departments should have some way for officers to contact a legal professional for advice in situations like this. The officer obviously did not know the law and simply made up schit as he went along. One phone call could have avoided this entire incident.

Don't the cops have access to assistant district attorney in these situations?

If not?...They should.

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see shy he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

I would think that a warrant needed to be obtained. I could be wrong.

You need a warrant.

We had a case here locally where a guy killed three people on Xmas Eve. He was three times over the limit but he walked because his blood was drawn without a warrant.

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

The way I read it he was the driver that was hit, not the one evading police.

(09-01-2017 02:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

The way I read it he was the driver that was hit, not the one evading police.

That is exactly right.

(09-01-2017 02:35 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 01:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll side with the nurse every time on a issue like this. Poor judgement on the cop's part. He should know you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


I have more of an issue with them wanting a sample from the guy in the first place. He did no wrong.

Hunh?

Did I miss that in the article? He was involved in an accident which killed the other driver. Cop may have thought the guy was drunk or on drugs, by the time he's conscious anything in his system could well be cleared.

I'm not defending his actions in regard to the nurse, but I could see why he wants a blood sample, had no idea (never thought about it) about that restriction.

Most places I think the cop can order a blood test, or if it can't be ordered but you refuse one, the presumption is guilty.

The way I read it he was the driver that was hit, not the one evading police.

Fair enough, I just read it quickly and don't feel like going and doing it again. lol

(09-01-2017 02:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You need a warrant.

We had a case here locally where a guy killed three people on Xmas Eve. He was three times over the limit but he walked because his blood was drawn without a warrant.

He must not have been unable to consent or refuse the test. In NC the cops can request a blood sample. If you refuse? You are considered guilty. I presume if you are unable to consent due to injury then a warrant would be necessary.

If I recall, the law regarding warrantless blood testing changed a few years ago after a Supreme Court case. Police normally now need either consent or a warrant to draw blood. There can be some exigent circumstances that would allow for a warrantless draw without consent, but just the fact that the amount of alcohol in the blood is dissipating doesn't rise to that level.

As a practical point, it would be super easy to get one. Just call the on call ADA so they can get on the phone with a judge.

(09-01-2017 02:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You need a warrant.

We had a case here locally where a guy killed three people on Xmas Eve. He was three times over the limit but he walked because his blood was drawn without a warrant.

He must not have been unable to consent or refuse the test. In NC the cops can request a blood sample. If you refuse? You are considered guilty. I presume if you are unable to consent due to injury then a warrant would be necessary.

That's ridiculous. What if you don't want blood drawn for religious reasons or you just have a phobia of needles.

I don't see how that could possibly hold up in court.

As for the guy, I don't know what state he was in when they drew his blood but I know from the news that he tried to walk away from the crash and his mug shot was taken and he didn't look hurt.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/c...625031.php

(09-01-2017 02:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 02:34 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You need a warrant.

We had a case here locally where a guy killed three people on Xmas Eve. He was three times over the limit but he walked because his blood was drawn without a warrant.

He must not have been unable to consent or refuse the test. In NC the cops can request a blood sample. If you refuse? You are considered guilty. I presume if you are unable to consent due to injury then a warrant would be necessary.

That's ridiculous. What if you don't want blood drawn for religious reasons or you just have a phobia of needles.

I don't see how that could possibly hold up in court.

As for the guy, I don't know what state he was in when they drew his blood but I know from the news that he tried to walk away from the crash and his mug shot was taken and he didn't look hurt.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/c...625031.php

I think the same applies to the breath test. Refusal is admission of guilt.

Every police officer involved in this should lose their job. This is just stupidity across the board.

Yeah, I'd say when this is all said and done...

1. She's gonna be rich (and rightfully so).

2. That policeman will be fired (and rightfully so).

She was calmly explaining the law and the hospital and police's legal agreement to abide by it. All he had to do was go request a warrant. It's not incredibly difficult. He was trying to cut time and paperwork by talking her into doing something she knew and the hospital proved was illegal.

My wife is a nurse. If this happened to her, we'd be filing a lawsuit against the city and that *******.

You can't arrest someone who is abiding by the law and was doing so respectfully. She wasn't being disrespectful by any stretch of the imagination. The officer is 100% wrong here.