Nurse Arrested For... Obstructing Justice? Or Following the Law?

Detective’s body camera confirms that Logan police asked him to back off blood draw before nurse’s arrest

Sure looks like he's going to go down hard.

Oh, and:

"Tracy says he has just learned that the hospital routinely takes blood from patients such as Gray upon arrival. So he suggests that they tell Logan police to seek a warrant in order to obtain the hospital’s existing blood sample from Gray. "

Told ya. They had what he wanted already.

Or, ironically, a hard-hitting US cop buddy series: Wubbles and McClane.

After sentencing.

masturbation!

Shocker!

Ol'boy has a history of reacting poorly to women telling him no.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/officer-in-nurse-arrest-was-reprimanded-for-sex-harassment/

Maybe that explains why he focused in on the nurse so much when she wasn't even really the one "obstructing" him, since she was literally just holding the phone her supervisor was trying to talk to him over.

svu episode?

She was talking to her supervisor, but she was the supervising nurse for that night. Maybe the cop wanted to speak to her supervisor or she decided to call her supervisor because the cop didn't believe her?

Now the Police Union has spoken out.
https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/27/police-union-complains-that-public-got-t

Are we still talking about Hot Lips? She got what she deserved for obstructing the cop. Those whose opinions aren't clouded by a desire to burn cops at the stake have said that there was implied consent for the blood draw.

Hospital policy is not binding law.

No, but the fourth amendment is.

There was implied consent by virtue of getting behind the wheel and driving on public roads. No 4th amendment issue.

How is that implied consent?

You need to catch up on your criminal law, Counselor. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, that both a breathalizer and blood draw were searches under the Fourth Amendment. They found that a compulsory breath test, without warrant, is Constitutional. However, requiring more intrusive blood tests involving piercing the skin is not, as the goal of traffic safety can be obtained by less invasive means.

So, you're wrong. Again.

Oh, and I kinda already talked about that here:

Sorry "officer," but you're the one who's wrong. And I'll post the article that addresses your points in a bit.

In any case, the blood had already been drawn. Hot Lips should have informed the cop of this.

You don't need an article. Here's the decision in .pdf straight from supremecourt.gov On page two it says, "The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests." Unless the person is under custodial arrest, and this person was not, you can't draw blood without consent or a warrant. Full stop.

I told you, we had remedial training on this to cover it. They wouldn't have wasted a lot of precious man hours (and overtime) doing that if it wasn't needed.

In 1996, Congress passed a law called the "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996." It's more commonly known as "HIPAA." It prohibited this nurse from telling the police anything about this patient, their medical condition, or their chart. If you were to call the hospital, the hospital isn't even supposed to confirm or deny that the person is even a patient at all. You can go with that explanation or you can say that any police officer on "blood draw detail" (or in the possession of more than one firing neuron) should know that Doctors routinely order BAL and Drug Screens as a matter of course on unconscious patients.

I talked about that here:

I still want to know how driving down a public road implies consent?

It's not driving down a public road. It's getting a driver's license. The courts have held that driving on public streets is not a right. The privilege of doing so is controlled and regulated by the State. It used to be that you agreed to certain things by being granted and then using an Operator's License Number (OLN).

But it still doesn't jive with what Flashy is saying about blood draws.

Then that's your first mistake. I'm no criminal lawyer. However, I was a police officer for almost two decades. If you have a question, I'll answer it to the best of my ability. But, I'm only knowledgeable about Alabama law and laws pertaining to a Police Officer's duty.

Okay, if having a driving license implies consent, but SCOTUS says you need a warrant to draw blood, then which one is it?

Implied consent for blood draws used to be normal operating procedure. By using your OLN, there was implied consent for a whole host of things. For instance, lets say you're high as a kite on cocaine. You're obviously going to blow a zero on a field or stationary breathalizer (we used a model made by Draeger). But, it would be obvious to your reasonable, average police officer that you were under the influence of something. You could then be compelled to undergo a blood draw under implied consent. But, all of this changed due to the SCOTUS ruling.

Okay, so flashy is full of shit then.

Ten years ago, what he was saying about implied consent would have been factually correct. But, I don't think criminal law is his specialty. So, he may not have known about this change.

Fair enough.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S520.html?v=C41-6a-S520_1800010118000101

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...d-nurse-was-wrong-but-the-law-is-complicated/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/04/arrested-utah-nurse-had-it-coming/

No, you weren't, and that was established years ago with your little cybersex scandal.

In other news, Elwood has never been as clever as he believes himself to be. Same with Storm.