Olympic Skier RN dragged to police car for refusing blood draw on unconscious patient

[DBdude]

yeah, the same one you went to

so where am I wrong? what did the cop do that would result in a successful suit against him or the department?

fuck, I have been harassed many times by cops, but I know I can't sue

come on esquire, show us your vaunted JD

[Mazderati]

it's not irrelevant you moron. the woman was arrested for protecting the patient's medical information. HIPPA's patient control of their medical information is explicitly stated. The police officer in SLC wanted the results of a test the patient did not explicitly state they could have access to. That is why the Hospital's procedures were written that way.

I suggest you read more and post less. I suggest a good intro to law class. I am sure you can find one on line

Charges against the man were dismissed.

[DBdude]

i am talking about the nurse

[Mazderati]

Yeah, the nurse in the case you referenced is male.

[Mazderati]

And this very same topic has it's own 100+ page thread. https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...Behaving-Badly

[DBdude]

whoops - yeah, I knew they weren't charged. they didn't do anything wrong and somebody had a clue

[irul&ublo]

First, you do not fully understand the concept of qualified immunity. Second, "willful, unreasonable" conduct is not the standard in a suit under section 1983. Third, this is a 4th Amendment issue, which prohibits unreasonable ("unreasonable" here is different than as you used the term, which use was drawn from common law tort concepts). searches and seizure. A warrentless search or seizure that is not supported by probable cause (a flexible concept depending on the degree of intrusion) is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Cop has no legal basis to force someone to perform a medical procedure. Arresting someone in that scenario is a clear cut 4th Amendment violation, and a battery under common law.

Listen junior, when you have actually (and successfully) litigated through trial a 4th Amendment case(s), then come back and school me.

[Mazderati]

whoops - yeah, I knew they weren't charged. they didn't do anything wrong and somebody had a clue

The nurse was charged. The link you posted says that exactly. The charge was later dismissed.

[DBdude]

First, you do not understand the qualified immunity. Second, "willful, unreasonable" conduct is not the standard in a suit under section 1983. Third, this is a 4th Amendment issue, which prohibits unreasonable ("unreasonable" here is different than as you used the term, which use was drawn from common law tort concepts). searches and seizure. A warrentless search or seizure that is not supported by probable cause (a flexible concept depending on the degree of intrusion) is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Cop has no legal basis to force someone to perform a medical procedure. Arresting someone in that scenario is a clear cut 4th Amendment violation, and a battery under common law.

Listen junior, when you have actually (and successfully) litigated through trial a 4th Amendment case(s), then come back and school me.

great, thank you

If he thinks so, doesn't he have probable cause?

and obviously, I am not a lawyer, but the hew and cry that there is a law suit every time a cop is an ass is ridiculous because nobody would be a cop

[jono]

And that nurse's actions were not similar to this nurse's actions except the Google popped up fast case for you when you typed HIPAA. Blocking access to serve someone is not remotely close to refusing to draw blood. So yes, irrelevant.

[DBdude]

no, he can't give consent. HIPPA is based on consent

[jono]

If he thinks so, doesn't he have probable cause?

and obviously, I am not a lawyer

Sig-worthy

[irul&ublo]

great, thank you

No problemo, where do I send the bill?

And BTW, in Birchfield, SCOTUS held that a warrantless draw was not allowed, even where incident to a DUI arrest. This guy, as far as I know, was not under arrest, which makes the cop's intended action, and direction to the RN, blatantly illegal.

[DBdude]

right, but how well versed in law does a cop need to be to exercise his duties and not fear being sued? isn't that the negligence concept?

i really am interested, and I don't think I am clueless. i really believe what the fuck head did would never come to trial

I don't believe that is equitable that it wouldn't come to trial, but I do believe that law enforcement has a lot of lee way to be fuck heads

[irul&ublo]

No. The issue is whether the law is "clearly established." Not dissimilar, but not the same.

[DBdude]

yeah, not that the blood test would ever see the light of day in court, but isn't the cop shielded. this is pretty esoteric and most cops are not JDs

[Danno]

this is pretty esoteric and most cops are not JDs

cops are expected to be well versed in 4th amendment law (better than any JD who doesn't practice crim law, generally speaking). That's their fucking job. and if they are not well versed in it (or act that way), that's where the lawsuits are.

[DBdude]

i can't imagine the fuck heads I run into know it

fuck, the last time I was arrested I wasn't mirandized

long time ago - thank you for caring

I was caught trespassing drinking beer on private property on the Hudson river in Warren County NY

[Danno]

i can't imagine the fuck heads I run into know it

fuck, the last time I was arrested I wasn't mirandized

long time ago - thank you for caring

I was caught trespassing drinking beer on private property on the Hudson river in Warren County NY

You don't have to be read your Miranda rights, that's not a requirement of a valid arrest.

[DBdude]

damn, learn something everyday

thank you

[From_the_NEK]

Yikes, the long version with the supervising officer calmly justifying that the entire blood draw may be bullshit when it comes to court and that the nurse doing her job and following the directions from her council (likely the person she was talking to on her phone) doesn't matter when it comes complying with police. Three officers hovering over her while this is explained to her in the police cruiser isn't intimidating at all either
The supervising officer giving her shit for "defending" an innocent person too . This whole thing is so fucked up. I realize the police have difficult jobs but it is amazing that so many haven't figured out when they should just back away from a situation before they step over the line of making things entirely worse for everyone involved. Respect my authority indeed.

[irul&ublo]

yeah, not that the blood test would ever see the light of day in court, but isn't the cop shielded. this is pretty esoteric and most cops are not JDs

It's not esoteric for the cop, they are trained in search and seizure law. Also, once SCOTUS has spoken, there is no issue as to whether the law is "clearly established." There is a "reasonable official" analysis which factors into the QI analysis, but is not the same as a negligence analysis.

[DBdude]

ahhh just googled it, that makes sense

[jono]

This whole thing is so fucked up. I realize the police have difficult jobs but it is amazing that so many haven't figured out when they should just back away from a situation before they step over the line of making things entirely worse for everyone involved. Respect my authority indeed.

We have gotten really used to saying "police have a difficult job" (and I'm not calling you out specifically here) but think about this for a second. Difficult jobs require education, training, intelligence, experience and, in a whole lot of cases, a license. Police have a job that, in most places, requires a GED. To "succeed" an officer will demonstrate his loyalty to the chain of command, not his ability to think through difficult situations.

In some cases an officer can be forgiven for not thinking of the right thing fast enough or misjudging a quickly developing situation. What's truly egregious here is that this guy had literally nothing pressing him to rush. He fucked this up with the benefit of maximum deliberation. Heaven help the black man he comes across who makes him "fear for his safety."

[old goat]

to go on most law suits against cops are based on civil rights issues, what protected class did the cops violate?

police officers are immune from lawsuits for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability

negligence covers a massive amount of police mistreatment

You are confusing discrimination with violation of civil rights. For a claim of discrimination--which is a kind of violation of civil rights not the only kind--you usually need to be a member of a protected class ordinarily. But everyone has civil rights under the various amendments to the Constitution and those rights, which the officer violated, apply to everyone, including old white men.

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The officer violated this amendment, but unreasonably seizing the nurse without probable cause or a warrant.

enjoy

http://www.hcpro.com/HIM-39008-866/N...ce-charge.html

I did enjoy because this article shows how clueless you are. The SLC nurse was refusing to allow the officer to perform an illegal search and to assault the patient. The nurse in this article was refusing to allow the officer to serve a lawful court order and also told the officer he was going to tell the patient to call his wife, in violation of the court order. Neither case has anything to do with HIPPA. The SLC case has to do with a cop who didn't like anyone, especially a woman, questioning his authority and not giving a shit about the Constitution. In the Wisoonsin case--identifying a patient's location in the hospital is not a HIPPA violation. The nurse was obstructing justice.

BTW the officer in the SLC case could easily have just gone in and drawn the blood himself since he was trained to do so (if he could find a vein under the burns). The hospital would have complained, nothing would have been done about it, and the illegal blood draw would have been brought in on the suit against the PD for the chase. He didn't need to arrest the nurse to get the blood drawn. I wonder if the blood did get drawn.