Cop arrests nurse for not drawing blood

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by VolDad, Sep 1, 2017.

  1. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    The issue isnt whether you can send a document. First, we have, on numerous occasions obtained search warrants and always try to even when we're getting the victim's blood. First, when you work in a jurisdiction with no magistrate and there is a wreck in the middle of the night, which is very common, several issues arise. One, you can't get a judge to sign the warrant because you simply can't get hold of them because they don't answer the telephone or are out of town and they're the only ones that can sign the warrant. Second, in rural counties in East Tennessee, the patient gets transported to UT Hospital, which is a different jurisdiction where our judges can not sign a search warrant. That adds several different elements in being able to track down a magistrate from within the jurisdiction where he patient has been transported. And, by that time, absolutely, if anything is in the system, it's being compromised, and that is an exigent circumstance and we will draw blood without a warrant. And it will be admissible. And it will and has been upheld on appeal. So, in practicality, it's a lot more than sending a picture or a PDF, but it's much easier to just pretend you know all about that when you don't.
     
  2. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    No disrespect intended, but does individual liberties stop or the 4th Amendment not apply because a judge might be asleep?

    I get the fact that it's of the utmost importance as well as law enforcement's job to solve & prosecute crimes, but civil liberties can't be circumvented because of lack of resources.
     
  3. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I'm not the one pretending it isn't "a reality" and that it is "a fiction." It isn't. I understand all of those things that you describe.

    Which amounts to "difficult." Nothing more. Simply because it is "difficult" doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

    What you are saying is that you are letting difficulty influence you because if he status quo; because it will be admissible most times, so you treat it as all times. And that is the status quo, but that doesn't make it ideal.

    I'm not pretending to know anything, I'm forcing you to acknowledge the flaw in your industry. I know, your industry "self governs."

    Well, unless a justice doesn't want to answer a telephone.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Sure they can, because the family is very upset.
     
  5. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    They do not, but an exception to the warrant requirement is exigent circumstances. And, those arise routinely and, if legitimate, are perfectly admissible in court. Obviously, the first thing we do is try to get a search warrant, but it's not always possible. Keep in mind, we would still have to subsequently show a judge that probable cause existed for the draw, and that exigent circumstances existed. And, it would be our burden of proof to do that.
     
  6. JayVols

    JayVols Walleye Catchin' Moderator

    This gives me something to chew on.


    Also, my wife is an NICU nurse. With medical privacy laws, I completely understand the stance of no warrant, no blood. That's not an unlawful act in any way, as I, with my very limited clue to any legalese stuff, see it.
     
  7. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I don't think anyone believes a warrant is always necessary. I certainly don't.

    But it should be rare, not routine. And if it has become routine, then there is a problem.

    And the fact that it is admissible makes it worse; when there is a ruling that says a warrant is required, but admits the sample that caused the ruling--that's even worse.

    Law you will see in your career more and more difficulty from health professionals complying with law enforcement on this, and if y'all ain't ready for it, you're screwed.

    And everything you keep saying leads me to believe y'all aren't even looking at it. And if you can't see the danger in that, then so be it.
     
  8. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    My "industry" is law enforcement, not lawyering. What that amounts to is an legally justified exigency. If you go looking for an exigency, then that is the wrong outlook. We always, 100% of the time seek a search warrant, because that's the law. But, there are certain problems that rural places face that urban ones do not in terms of exigency. Knoxville probably very rarely would have an exigency because of the access to 24 hour magistrates, etc. That just isn't the same in the majority of the country. That definitely is a flaw, and I freely admit that. But, that's reality when you're tasked with dealing with these things, which, of course, you don't have to and can simply commentate.
     
  9. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Yes, and in the case you're espousing your knowledge on, it was the blood of the victim not the defendant. So, yes, if I told that person's family that we were not able to get a blood sample from their relative which hampers our ability to prosecute the person who did this to them, they will be very upset.
     
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Ok, and?
     
  11. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I don't have to deal with them from a work perspective; I do have to deal with them as a citizen of this country.

    You may desire a country where things are avoided because they are just too difficult for you. I do not have that desire.

    So yes, I comment. Maybe if you did, while also working in the industry, some flaws could be changed.

    But maybe defeatism is part of the job, and thus I also cannot understand that. But I'm glad to see you got plenty for both of us.
     
  12. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Thanks for the advice. The "ruling" you're referring to doesn't say a warrant is required. It says the exigency to get around a warrant has to be more than just the dissipation of substances from a person's system, meaning that accessibility to a magistrate, limited numbers of officers available to get a warrant while also securing the scene, etc. No warrant on the basis of exigency was the norm in all 50 states and Tennessee has a statute that is now inapplicable that required law enforcement to take blood. So, some context and some knowledge about this subject is key to really understanding it. You're a smart guy. I trust you're capable of that.
     
  13. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    No, I live in reality. You're a classic backseat driver. I get it. You desire a country with more requirements than the constitution and the courts require. Cool. Still not reality. That's not defeatist in any way.
     
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    That's a really poorly worded response. I was referring to that specific instance, that in those circumstances, a warrant would be proper.

    Yes, there was a broader implication; but if those exact circumstances were to be repeated exactly today, would a warrant be required?

    If yes, that's the ruling. Maybe not in broader legal theory, but at the heart of it, that's the ruling. True or no?
     
  15. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Well, the courts during working hours at least. Clearly after 8 pm, service can wait, because of all the realists who have better things to do.
     
  16. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    A warrant is always required for any search. States passed laws and universally recognized that an exigent circumstance was the dissipation of alcohol or drugs from the system. The old method was if you were involved in a wreck with injury, you got a blood draw without a warrant due to that exigency. That case simply says that dissipation of substances is in and of itself not enough to establish exigency. So, that invalidates all the mandatory blood draw laws that were already on the books. So, essentially, no warrant and not even seeking a warrant was the norm and the law for years and years and no one complained. And, now, we operate in a situation where we always seek warrants and do our best to make that happen, and people like you claim that's defeatist when you have no real context or knowledge on this subject.
     
  17. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Supreme Court rulings are almost always broad. But, they ruled in those circumstances in that case, that is not an exigency circumstance to the warrant requirement.
     
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I bet lots of people like me complained and lots of people like you said it was admissible and too difficult to change, and kept the status quo, until someone like me who had your job and a bit of backbone got rid of the status quo.

    And now here we are, in the same situation all over again, just a different set of procedures. Luckily tech is going to expedite the requirement to always have a warrant (I'd bet), and that way we aren't reliant on someone like you, with all the context and all the knowledge, simply tucking tail and accepting it because you have all the knowledge and context, but none of the awareness.
     
  19. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You said that the ruling I was referring to didn't say a warrant was required, but if a warrant was required, and that wasn't an exigency circumstance, then... logically, that ruling is saying a warrant was required.

    Yes or no?
     
  20. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    If you think insulting me as some coward on a message board helps your argument, have at it. My job is to victims of crime, and to do my very best, within the law, to bring them justice. I take that very seriously. i don't have all the knowledge on anything, but I have some just because it's my job. How this came about is, as a matter of course, a conviction got appealed on this issue, and the courts ruled that what all 50 states had determined was the law wasn't good enough. It wasn't some display of amazing courage that led to this. I also have no problem with it. I'm perfectly comfortable with how I do and approach my job and the fact that some [penis] like yourself tries to insult my integrity and how I do my job when you don't have the first clue, that's fine with me.
     

Share This Page