The unconscious victim was a reserve police officer and the Det. was trying to obtain a blood sample to protect him. The other driver in the accident was a fleeing felon, who died in the crash. No apparent exigent circumstances...no on-going risk to life...only an ego contest...

The article quotes the Det. later, after the arrest, saying about his off-duty job driving an ambulance that he'll only bring transients to the hospital, not good patients. Insight into his character...this is an example of a cop in the wrong, getting backing from above, trying to throw his authority around, and when confronted by someone in the right, compounding his mistake by making another one and arresting the nurse. Sometimes bad cops make Detective, otherwise known as d*cks...

This prolly would not have happened if the unconscious victim was just another truck driver, but this one was a reserve police officer...

...it's situations and behaviors like this that can lead to SCOTUS decisions that draw lines around how police may and may not act in service to the community...but it is doubtful that his department would argue in his defense all the way to the SCOTUS.

just saw it...hysterical for sure

It's helped me a couple times.

I once got a ticket though when I was responding to emergency page from the hospital when there was a snow related travel ban. Cop said emergency vehicles only. Showed him my badge and the page. He said no lights on your roof, not an emergency vehicle. I took ticket and proceeded down the road to the hospital. Judge threw it out.

Next time

I saw post 20.

The cop was wrong period.

Rewatching it both of those cops are on the wrong side of the badge and need to find new employment

^ yeah that's my issue here.....

Why in the holy **** were they trying to protect the criminal that caused the wreck? I don't see any good motive on this one. The guy thy were trying to collect from was A VICTIM.

Did you catch the cop saying he was a sick of the hospital pulling this ****. These were two cops who were sick of their authority being questioned in any way. They got to go. Too many like them and omertà protects them.

ba bye

Anthony. Reading the news article is more informative than the video.

You're casting judgement without any idea of the circumstances. I certainly hope you aren't so naive to believe that because someone gets catch on tape in a moment of frustration that person is a bad person. How many times have you gotten pissed because a piece of red tape blocked you from doing your job?

There have been numerous times when ER staff pissed me off. They have a job to do and policy to follow. However, when that conflicts with an officer's responsibility under "color of law" then problems arise.

As far as the police department issuing an apology, that seem like a knee jerk reaction. An officer gets caught on tape in a situation that makes the department look bad. Their political reaction is to apologize so it looks like a rotten apple gone rouge and not an implication of the department especially with the current anti-police narrative.

Unless you have some inside, no-public information, you're make an uninformed decision.

If the officer was wrong, then he should disciplined. I support that as much as anyone. But as I recall, the officer from up near you who was demonized for shooting an unarmed angel in the back who had his hands up. Once it was determined that the angel's DNA was all over the front seat of the police car we realized this gentle giant that was not shot in the back was actually shot while attacking a police officer.

I prefer to presume someone's innocence until proven guilty. Based on your experience in the racing van, I would think you would feel the same way.

The attitude alone was enough for me and telling.

But Zrx is right the video alone doesn't give the picture. You need to read everything else as well. Looks like a criminal investigation in to the policeman has been initiated. He is innocent until proven guilty criminally. But that's just criminally.

But based on how he treated hospital staff and attitude alone he needs to find other work.

Like I said, I didn't watch the video. What occurred that caused people to feel the need to record is paramount. If the nurse obstructed the officer who was legeally performing the duties of his office then he has probable cause to arrest her, PERIOD



As stated above the SCOTUS has never made unwarranted collection of blood unconstitutional. It has however, very narrowly defined under what circumstances it is permissible. One such circumstance is if a person is unable to consent. The person from whom the blood was drawn was unconscious at the time and therefore unable to consent.

At the time this occurred the officer in question, a trained phlebotomist, was at the hospital to collect a blood sample, which more than likely is protocol in a motor vehicle crash fatality. Why does the police department even need phlebotomists? Have they had difficulties in the past with ER staff refusing to draw blood? Did she try to prevent him from carrying out his lawful duties? If she did, then she's subject t to arrest. Did he man handle her when he arrested her? Still haven't watched the video, but did she resist him when he tried to arrest her? I seriously doubt his initial attempt at arrest was to body slam her.

Not at all trying to defend the officer, but I find it very difficult to make a rational decision based on a video that certainly doesn't capture the lead up and a media article.

The fact that the agency apologized means absolutely nothing to me. In my experience I've seen numerous politicians apologize for doing the right thing because of the wind direction.

It would be nice to know why he wanted the blood in the first place...

More than likely when the request was made, they didn't know 1) who caused the accident and 2) they didn't realize the unconscious guy was a reserve police officer.

Good advice, but he didn't need her to draw the blood, he was a licensed phlebotomist. Something is missing

^yup

The sad part is it sounds like blood had already been drawn.

Deleted my post. I think I'm wrong about a Utah law.

I sure read BIRCHFIELD VS North Dakota differently than you do.

They already had blood in the end. No need to draw. But as the other cop shop indicated in their press statement the nurse did her duty protecting her patient. I agree with their take (which also says wait for the investigation).

This cop is bad news. Fire him at a minimum. If convicted after an investigation make him wear his uniform in the pokey lol.


I'd guess the only jr lawyer worse than a policeman is someone who reads and writes regs for a living lol

You are 100% wrong.... an individual who is not under arrest and has not given consent and when there is no probable cause, an officer is absolutely in violation of the law if he proceeds to take blood anyway.... i don't know how you can think there is a different answer to that...

I get what you are saying but the slant is somewhat different. I think you are trying to read it with as much leeway to the police as possible, but I don't think the courts will read it that way.

A warrant would be needed unless exigent circumstances exist. It seems to me you lean towards exigent circumstances always or almost always exist. alcohol burning off is not considered an exigent circumstance in and of itself and is on a case by case basis rather than blanket. It seems to me you are trying to apply it as a blanket.

I think it's the exact opposite, you have to establish that. In this case the cops themselves say there was no probable cause and the could not get a warrant. The patient could not consent. The patient was not under arrest. I dont see anywhere to even suspect the victim was under the influence of alcohol which is why the police said they could not get a warrant. To claim exigent circumstances here would require quite a bit of work unless you consider it a blanket excuse. Which it is not.

Why did they need to search or seize anything from an unconscious victim of a car crash..??

They are fishing, and exigent circumstances is a huge reach here.

He said to the other cop (body cam) they woukd not get a warrant because they did not have probable cause.

There was no reason to compel a blood draw or the compel them access to their patient to do so. That's the problem. Looking for a way to accomplish it without good reason because you want it is problematic especially if you are going to use things like exigent circumstances to do so. The dude even explained the courts might throw it out later but that's not her concern. Access to her patient certainly is.

For the record I've not heard them claiming exigent circumstances so it's a theoretical thing at this point.

And.... it looks like blood was already drawn (duh. Burn victim in accident) so it would move towards getting a warrant for the results (again said by cop2) and no evidence is getting destroyed.

This cop is dumb and wreck less. He heard it as no and got pissed. Cops don't have to take no. Cop 2 was a little smarter and said they should have talked more and it could have been settled instead of her saying no.

It's all about no.

I'm watching dr no right now. Did you know bond preferred a beretta but was forced to use walther?