Replace all Confederate statues with the nurse imo, she should be a national hero. Puts her foot down with Officer Rage Hulk, is correct, and is protecting an unconscious dude who she easily could have just been like yeah whatever, do what you want to the guy. The headline isn't that she's doing her job, she's literally going above and beyond to protect her patient. Her job is to take blood, not fight with the cops, but she fought with the cops anyway. Kudos to that lady.

Implied consent only applies as a search incident to arrest. The patient was never arrested, and wasn't even considered a suspect in a crime. Attempting to force a blood draw without consent is clearly unconstitutional in this case.

mic drop

Disagree. The cop clearly was wrong in tossing the nurse around but was noble and honorable otherwise. Perhaps a statue with her on the ground with the cop's foot on her back with the caption "For those noble police who who policed honorably"

Quite the headline and subhead juxtaposition

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59...ushpmg00000067

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000009

This is interesting ...

It appears that a Salt Lake City police officer was determined to get a blood sample from an unconscious patient without a properly executed search warrant. In [apparent] frustration, he decided to arrest Alex Wubbels, the hospital nurse. Once the video of the arrest went viral, a public uproar prompted local politicians (including the mayor) to react. In watching and listening to the verbal exchange that occurred immediately prior to the arrest, it's fairly clear that the officer was [verbally] warned by the nurse's supervisor (or a hospital administrator) not to take such an action, but the officer ignored the warning and proceeded with the arrest anyway. Once the video went viral, the predicable outrage followed. Nurse Wubbels is probably a hero in her hospital while Officer Payne is probably facing a bleak future. (Officer Payne is likely to be demoted at a minimum - if he's lucky enough to avoid losing his job.)

In carefully reading the Huff Post article, (you have to take press accounts with a grain of salt), it appears that the blame lies not so much with Officer Payne as with his Watch Commander who [apparently] ordered Officer Payne to go ahead and make the arrest. If that is indeed the case, then it should be the Watch Commander (rather than Officer Payne) who suffers the consequences for this error. At a minimum, the Watch Commander should have known what the agreement was with the hospital concerning this specific set of circumstances. As the Huff Post article notes, the United States Supreme Court has issued guidelines on how police should proceed in such circumstances. (It is against the law to conduct such a "search" without a properly executed search warrant.) Whatever the case, there was an obvious failure in training and communications within the Salt Lake City PD. (I suppose it's possible that the agreement between the Salt Lake City PD and the hospital had just been reached and this information had not yet been communicated to officers in the field. These things take time ...)

It will be interesting to see how this gets resolved. The mayor and the Police Chief appear to be falling all over each other to apologize to Nurse Wubbels - apologies which she has accepted. The local District Attorney has ordered a "criminal" investigation of Officer Payne. I'm not sure that Officer Payne had criminal intent in affecting the arrest. If he was acting under the direct orders of his Watch Commander, then he may have a valid defense. If Officer Payne and his Watch Commander had not yet received a briefing on the formal [written] agreement worked out between the hospital and the police department, then this is an unfortunate failure of communications. (I have a feeling police departments all over the country will be intensively reviewing their officer training with respect to proper search warrant procedures.) If the evidence shows that Officer Payne lost self control and acted rashly, out of frustration, then he's probably finished career-wise.

None of this bull**** and blaming his superior.

He could have said, "Brah, I'm not arresting the nurse. Call the hospital and ask for the manager, I'm out."

awval is right. There I said it.

The watch commander might be wrong as well, but it's incumbent on a police officer not to defile the constitution.

Most cops take an oath something like this:

Now, they obviously shouldn't be required to be constitutional scholars, but having a clue about unreasonable search and seizure should be something they make themselves familiar with if they are going to take that oath.

I don't know all the details of this story.

What happened after the police officer arrested the nurse in the video and took her outside? Did he come back into the hospital room and demand that some other nurse take the unconscious patient's blood?

If so, what happened? If not, why not?

whosnext:

According to this article:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/3...scious-victim/

he joked with another officer out in the hospital parking lot (after the arrest) concerning whether this arrest would adversely affect an off-duty part-time job he had transporting patients for an ambulance service.

I hear the weather in Nuremberg is lovely this time of year.

This story is actually way more nuts than even the WaPo documents.

I think this sums it up well: http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/01/ev...arrest-of-this

Here's the background before the hospital. Key point: Utah cops are not supposed to engage in high speed chases, it's against policy

http://fox13now.com/2017/07/27/polic...ar-wellsville/

The driver of the semi-truck is the guy that the cops are trying to illegally get blood drawn from. He was never suspected of any crime at all. He was just a bystander who got hit by the suspected criminal/erratic driver guy.

This is important. So, the story, then:

1. the hulk cop who eventually arrested the nurse was just involved in a high speed chase (against department policy -- they're not supposed to engage in high speed chases due to the danger to innocents)
2. the suspect is killed
3. the guy who is unconscious (more on him in a moment) is an innocent bystander driver who got caught up in the chaos of the high speed pursuit the cops are not supposed to do.

That's why this bystander guy is of such interest to the cops. The hulk cop who is trying to draw blood from this unconscious guy is basically involved in a huge, longshot CYA/fishing expedition to find something in this guy's blood (alcohol, weed, prescription drugs whatever) so he can say the unconscious guy was drunk/high and not take the blame for engaging in a high speed chase. Because these kinds of things (bystanders getting hurt) is exactly why the cops aren't supposed to do high speed chases.

What a ****ing incredible miscarriage of justice. The cops weren't even trying to overzealously pursue a criminal and violate his Constitutional rights. They were overzealously trying to pin a crime on a ****ing bystander to find some plausible excuse for their bad behavior. In their torrent of bad ****ing decisions, they make another victim out of the nurse. What a ****show.

Postscript: the unconscious innocent bystander guy is himself a cop

I had heard (and posted about) the high speed chase thing, but wow at the unconscious guy being a cop.

Utah jackass still has his job, btw.

The semi driver was a cop?

Who wrote this script?!? That's not believable at all.

so does the euclid cop.

This is pretty good

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/09/how-m...ps-need-to-go/

That is fire

Source? Haven't read this anywhere.

Elie Mystal is pretty good, normally.

"There's a Very Bad Habit Up Here of Your Policy Interfering With My Law"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Osjv9KEpdBM

With nurse Webbels arrested and under police custody, listen to the conversation at the 17:25 mark where a senior police officer is explaining "the law" to a hospital staff member.

This reminds me of an apt comment attributed to Mark Twain which goes something like this: "It ain't the things you know for sure that get you in trouble. It's the things you know for sure that just ain't so!"

http://www.slcdocs.com/police/ppm.pdf

Thanks.


Continuing the "fire them all" theme, NYT has a story today about a five year old case in Ferguson that, for unknown reasons, the city is continuing to prosecute despite it highlighting all of their worst civil rights problems:

...but particularly egregious is the history of the arresting officer:

This guy is still an officer in Ferguson!!

Regarding how/why the case is still being prosecuted, despite city leadership being shaken up since the DoJ got involved there:

WTF?

Officer Eddie Boyd III is the villain there. His name should be made as searchable on the internet as possible.

Here's a picture of the SOB.

Easy, it's a question of liability.

Many times bogus charges won't be dropped because it makes it harder for the unjustly accused to bring suit against the city.

Many cases are dropped only when the suspect signs a statement agreeing not to hold the city liable for damage in return for said charges being dropped.

The color that really matters is green.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk