That's an entirely fair point. But even if true, the nurse is actually, or at the very least reasonably believed, that she is similarly bound - both by duty and (seemingly, per her understanding of) the law - to have not drawn the sample without either warrant or the patient's consent. As a complete layman, and being largely ignorant of even the very basics of law, I'm not aware of any law which permits, or even enables, the arresting officer to compel her to violate either the law or her duty, as she reasonably understood it to be (and showed proof of, via the policy she was holding and explaining to him). Even if a court later finds that she's ultimately proven to have been in error in refusing, and the arresting officer is shown to be (legally) correct in requesting she do it - in that moment, she had valid reason to believe it to be unlawful, and was correct in refusing it. If a bank robber is escaping on foot and an officer orders me to run the person over with my car, surely I can refuse, and be justified in doing so, as I reasonably believed that s/he had no authority to compel me to commit what I reasonably believed to be an unlawful act, in that moment.
SCOTUS ruled in 2013 that if a warrant can reasonably be obtained, then it should, due to 4th amendment protections. Since we can do electronic warrants in 30 minutes or less (isn't tech great), then failing to do so is a violation of protected rights.
That's what I was reading in the link I posted. I guess the worst thing they can do is take the person's license if they refuse a test on sight.
The guy is in question was the victim, having been hit by the guy the police were chasing. No reason to draw blood other than to try and protect the cities ass from a lawsuit. That is not a good enough reason.
I see. Like I said, I know nothing about what was going on, but that does sound like a city's pd covering their ass
Dude was a [Penis] on a power trip. "Implied consent" IMO wouldn't even apply in this scenario. When we (as a nurse or a paramedic) operate under implied consent, we are doing so in the best interests of the patient, which typically means that we are doing something that is a life-saving or life-prolonging measure. In some instances, that also means that we obtain blood and/or urine samples for tox screens, pregnancies, etc. that are to be used only for medical treatment purposes. In my hospital, our lab printouts specifically state that the results of our tests may not be used as evidence in court. We don't regularly do blood draws for law enforcement, but when we do, the investigating agency (typically NCSHP) has all of their paperwork and warrants prepared ahead of time, without fail. Fortunately, we have a great working relationship with our local law enforcement agencies. I applaud RN Wubbels for standing her ground, I'm glad that [Penis] has already lost his part-time paramedic job, and losing his law enforcement job shouldn't be far behind. I don't see any legal principal that would support his actions, and certainly there are no ethical principals that would support him. Pricks like him are the ones that give cops and paramedics a bad name, when our jobs are hard enough already.
Good. Should have happened the next day or at the very least within the week, though. Hang around more, my friend.
I watched this and definitely think the cop was in the wrong; however, I can tell you from firsthand experience, it's very, very easy to get highly frustrated with hospitals in these types of situations.
I guess possibly. The other very obvious reason is to aid in the prosecution. You always want the blood results from defendant and victim.
Serious uneducated question. Hospitals draw blood upon admittance normally. Would it not have been more prudent to seek a warrant for the toxicology reports from that? Also, the victim, now deceased, was badly burned and had been given significant doses of pain meds. Wouldn't that fact also make it more prudent to seek those original blood draw reports? And, in my uneducated opinion, there would not be the urgency that this cop was displaying. Again, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but am curious and would appreciate being educated on those questions.
Yep, would definitely need the hospital records to show what pain meds the victim was given. It's always more preferable to have a blood sample sent to the same lab that's analyzing the defendant's blood so the testing can't be challenged as easily. For example, the TBI Crime Lab is nationally accredited and much more difficult to challenge on credentials or testing practices.
Most of the time, I believe you'll find that the dead guy's family cares more about doing something to the ass hole that killed their relative. I tend to side with them.
I have no idea of their capabilities there with warrants, but the 30 minute warrant is pure fiction in a whole lot of places.
