When the hospital and local law enforcement came up with their policy, they should have made sure they were in compliance with the law:

"An exigent circumstance exists where there is an urgency to acquire evidence that falls outside the ordinary course of law enforcement. Generally exigent circumstances exist if: (1) there is a good chance that evidence will be destroyed or concealed if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant; (2) It is likely that the suspect will flee if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant; or (3) there is a real danger to the people if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant. The rationale for permitting warrantless searches under such circumstances is that extreme situations dictate that peace officers act quickly, when there is no time to secure a warrant."

The hospital was aware of the blood policy for commercial accidents and I'd bet they already had some on ice.

The detective should have just left but didn't. Like someone said "Swing and a miss".

How about ethics, does the concept apply?

I think ethics has been decided. A seasoned Chief told us "Don't step on your dick and expect me to kiss it and make it better"

quote:

The hospital was aware of the blood policy for commercial accidents and I'd bet they already had some on ice.

This doesn't matter. Posters keep bringing up the DOT reg on blood test after any accident. That reg exists. It places an obligation on the employer of the driver to obtain a blood sample as soon as practicable after an accident. It doesn't empower the state to take one from the driver. The existence of the DOT reg is not probable cause. It's a requirement that the driver consent to a blood draw if the driver wants to keep his Commercial Driver's License and be able to keep making a living. It is not a blanket permission for a cop to take a guy's blood.

Let's look at this:

The cop involved wasn't one of the pursuit officers. Those officers worked for a different agency. He was there because the other agency asked him to get them blood. Thus the cop had no personal knowledge about the guy strapped to the gurney, so he couldn't swear out a warrant. This cop knows NOTHING about the guy on the gurney other than what another officer from another agency has told him. Warrants must be based on knowledge. He has none. He can't even be sure that the guy on the gurney is the guy who was in the truck because he wasn't there. He's just taking someone else's word for it. This is not how criminal law works in this country. The warrant requirement is serious business and we condone its erosion at out peril.

Even if he had been on scene and witnessed the accident, he wouldn't have had any observations or evidence about the driver of the commercial truck that would rise to the level of PC for a search.

The hospital had an unconscious guy with burns from a car accident on a gurney. They had a patient to treat, and no indication that the patient was in any way impaired.

No one has made an allegation of smelling alcohol or otherwise gaining PC about the commercial driver that would justify a search.

Without probable cause or consent, there is no ability to conduct the search, and a blood draw is a search, in fact, it is a particularly invasive search.

Please understand that "exigency" is only an exception to the warrant requirement, it is NOT a waiver of or exception to the probable cause requirement. The exigent circumstances doctrine only applies when a warrant could be issued, but there is no time to get it. PC still must exist for an exigent search to be constitutional.

So the DOT CDL regulation isn't PC and exigency isn't PC, and there are no facts for PC, so there is no blood draw by the cops.

IMO, even a subpoena for the hospital records might not issue, or could be quashed, because there is nothing for the local police to investigate with regard to the "innocent" truck driver. It is the obligation of the employer and the truck driver to do the blood draw as a condition of keeping the CDL; it's not the duty of the local cops.

"Implied consent" is a very dangerous doctrine, and it does not override the probable cause requirement. All it says is, "if you don't consent, there can be consequences" it is not a substitute for consent.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

The hospital was aware of the blood policy for commercial accidents and I'd bet they already had some on ice.

That is not the responsibility of the hospital or the police or anyone other than the employer of the person involved in the accident. The employer is the one who must make sure that a drug and alcohol test is performed within a certain amount of time after the incident. Not the hospital. Not the police. And not Mickey Mouse.

ETA: Artie beat me to it.

Same as truck drivers, Merchant Mariners fall under very similar regulations.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

The hospital was aware of the blood policy for commercial accidents and I'd bet they already had some on ice.

That is not the responsibility of the hospital or the police or anyone other than the employer of the person involved in the accident. The employer is the one who must make sure that a drug and alcohol test is performed within a certain amount of time after the incident. Not the hospital. Not the police. And not Mickey Mouse.

ETA: Artie beat me to it.

Same as truck drivers, Merchant Mariners fall under very similar regulations.

You seem to be an expert on just about everything so I am leaving this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

The hospital was aware of the blood policy for commercial accidents and I'd bet they already had some on ice.

That is not the responsibility of the hospital or the police or anyone other than the employer of the person involved in the accident. The employer is the one who must make sure that a drug and alcohol test is performed within a certain amount of time after the incident. Not the hospital. Not the police. And not Mickey Mouse.

ETA: Artie beat me to it.

Same as truck drivers, Merchant Mariners fall under very similar regulations.

You seem to be an expert on just about everything so I am leaving this thread.

Why in the hell would you say that?

quote:

You seem to be an expert on just about everything so I am leaving this thread.

Ulsterman:

I'm curious, and not trying to be an ass; if you disagree with my analysis above, where am I wrong?

I was a prosecutor some time ago, and I dealt with both probable cause issues, and exigent search issues. If my analysis is incorrect, I'd like to understand why.

Respectfully, thank you.

A

ETA: It goes without saying that when I was in that position, I would not have ok'd the draw. If the law has changed, or if my understanding is flawed, I'd like to know. I have been out of that area for a while now.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:...Why in the hell would you say that?

Maybe a self proclaimed expert was offended by a differing expert opinion.

I wonder when/if any of this is going to roll uphill. Wasn't he "ordered" to do it? Someone higher up should be in big trouble but I havent heard anything about that.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
When the hospital and local law enforcement came up with their policy, they should have made sure they were in compliance with the law:

"An exigent circumstance exists where there is an urgency to acquire evidence that falls outside the ordinary course of law enforcement. Generally exigent circumstances exist if: (1) there is a good chance that evidence will be destroyed or concealed if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant; (2) It is likely that the suspect will flee if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant; or (3) there is a real danger to the people if the peace officer takes the time to procure a warrant. The rationale for permitting warrantless searches under such circumstances is that extreme situations dictate that peace officers act quickly, when there is no time to secure a warrant."

The hospital was aware of the blood policy for commercial accidents and I'd bet they already had some on ice.

The detective should have just left but didn't. Like someone said "Swing and a miss".

I'm sure you are right. The hospital already had his blood. They take the blood from unconscious people for blood type, medical reactions from medications etc... They do it for medical reasons and could careless about DOT and his commercial license. Artie is exactly right. The Commercial and DOT regs are not a back door around the warrant subpoena process.

There are only two reasons for Det Payne to have been there. Chain of custody for the body in case the victim dies. If the victim wakes up so we could get him to sign a medical release to get his medical records and to get his statement. Subpoenas take weeks to months here in SLC. There was no PC for a warrant as the Det admitted to another officer. a signed medical release and we get the records the next day. Piece of cake! In twenty years of being an officer i have never had anyone refuse to sign the medical release.

she needs to draw up a paper stating that she is
being forced by officer_______ to draw blood on patient________ against her will and against contractual agreement with the local law enforcement,
and that she is being threatened by the fore mentioned officer with incarceration and that she was not read her miranda rights at any time .

then she should sue the dept for 6 million dollars and settle out of court for 3 mil.
set a precedent

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
she needs to draw up a paper stating that she is
being forced by officer_______ to draw blood on patient________ against her will and against contractual agreement with the local law enforcement,
and that she is being threatened by the fore mentioned officer with incarceration and that she was not read her miranda rights at any time .

then she should sue the dept for 6 million dollars and settle out of court for 3 mil.
set a precedent

I might start with double those amounts. One thing is for certain - I'd never have to work another day.

I've lost the bubble in this thread, but y'all can set me straight.

My current impression is that the truck driver was killed in a head-on collision initiated deliberately (based on another video from a police dash cam) by a reserve deputy. The deputy ended up in the hospital where he was being treated while the drama unfolded at the nursing station.

The discussion so far seems to say that regardless of who the patient was, the situation would have to have met the qualifying conditions (warrant, consent or arrest) for Payne to legally obtain the blood sample. Nothing I've read or viewed indicates that any of the conditions had been met.

Having lived with a nurse for 45 years, I appreciate the nurse's position in this case. Doing something that could result in loss of her license - something she would have been acutely aware of - was not going to happen, so her actions were perfectly rational.

In relevant part, Utah code defines obstruction of a peace officer as follows:

quote:

Index Utah Code
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 8 Offenses Against the Administration of Government
Part 3 Obstructing Governmental Operations
Section 305 Interference with peace officer. (Effective 5/9/2017)

Effective 5/9/2017

76-8-305. Interference with peace officer.

(1) A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if the person knows, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that a peace officer is seeking to effect a lawful arrest or detention of that person or another person and interferes with the arrest or detention by:
(a) use of force or any weapon;
(b) refusing to perform any act required by lawful order:
(i) necessary to effect the arrest or detention; and
(ii) made by a peace officer involved in the arrest or detention; or
(c) refusing to refrain from performing any act that would impede the arrest or detention.

The officer was not acting to lawfully arrest or detain the guy on the gurney. He admitted as much. Thus, obstruction of a peace officer is not relevant here as his conduct doesn't meet the requirements of the statute.

From the available information, both the officer and the lieutenant weren't just a little mistaken, they were wildly off base.

Because there is no evidence of a crime on the part of the commercial truck driver, the entire pyramid of what the police were claiming falls down.

Without a crime there is no "evidence" to collect. Evidence is not simple information; it is "evidence of a crime". Probable cause for the commission of a crime by the person to be searched or in this case, the property to be seized (that person's blood) must exist for the search or seizure to be good.

The officers admitted that they didn't have PC for a search or seizure, and they didn't have any cause to arrest the driver on the gurney.

Without either of those things, the officers are not acting under the statutory authority of peace officers going about their duties, so they can't take shelter in the obstruction of a peace officer charge either.

The authority of the state to act is a chain of legally justifiable causes, each of which is dependent on the others. When that chain of causation is broken, or as in this case, never existed in the first place, the state (in this case, the officers) lose their authority to officially intervene.

If they believed, even incorrectly, that they could arrest the driver, and that the nurse was preventing that, then they would have been ok, at least with the obstruction charge. It would have been thrown out later, but they would have at least been correct in their belief of the rightness and propriety of their actions. Since by their own statements, they can't claim that, they were truly operating without a net, and apparently let their emotions get the better of them.

quote:

My current impression is that the truck driver was killed in a head-on collision initiated deliberately (based on another video from a police dash cam) by a reserve deputy. The deputy ended up in the hospital where he was being treated while the drama unfolded at the nursing station.

Negative.

The truck driver is a professional driver and reserve deputy. He was the injured party and did nothing wrong.

The person who caused the accident was being chased by the police and was killed.

a1abdj, thanks.

I might add, the officer dragging that nurse across the floor, damn he was ugly. But seriously, what a stupid move based on what I've hear so far. As a detective, he should have figured all that out just by the instinct of experience. My guess is he had other issues he dragged into the job unfortunately. He was pure rage at that point, a bad place to be I imagine while on duty. Take it out on your pos lawnmower instead. I hope he gets hog tied and the Nurse retires in the Bahamas.

THIS is why I don't trust the police. I appreciate them in an emergency if I call them needing help, but I don't trust them to be reasonable human beings with a normal amount of natural intelligence and common sense. It just seems there are too many bad apples, notwithstanding the internet affect of course.

I bet that ain't his first rodeo assaulting a woman.

I will reiterate that the officer was an ass of epic proportions. That being said, I drive trucks on occasion for my employer and my company has a written agreement with state PD in all 50 states that any driver involved in an accident is to be issued a blood draw as soon as practicable to comply with DOT regulations.
The blood draw is the companies responsibility, law enforcement may be tasked with the job of obtaining the sample with permission from the company. This mans company may have had some such agreement that has not been brought to light as of yet. That being said the arrest was completely unjustified and the officers treatment of the nurse was borderline criminal.