quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

um, the thing is 67 pages long.

here's a seemingly pertinent snippet so far.

quote:

In Schmerber v. California, we held that drunk driving may present such an exigency. There, an officer directed hospital personnel to take a blood sample from a driver who was receiving treatment for car crash injuries. 384
U. S., at 758. The Court concluded that the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency” that left no time to seek a warrant because “the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops.” Id., at 770. On the specific facts of that case, where time had already been lost taking the driver to the hospital and investigating the accident, the Court found no Fourth Amendment violation even though the warrantless blood draw took place over the driver’s objection. Id., at 770–772.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
And the police department has acknowledged that this was improper.

what did they acknowledge? that the arrest was improper, or that the officer wanting a blood sample was improper?

Are you not able to access any links, whether to video, or national news sites, or local sites? I'm done spoon-feeding. I have provided links to everything but the actual Court opinion, and it plus all this other info I have provided is easily searchable even if you can't access my links.

im on my own search for information and ive said as much. and ive asked meaningful questions about the relationship between state law and federal interpretation.

ive also CLEARLY stated I cant watch video, and I wasn't going to be able to get to the Washington post link.

to ask you to provide relevant information isn't being "spoon-fed", its human decency in conversation.

so really, fuck off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Contrary to JUSTICE THOMAS’s contention, this balancing does not leave law enforcement officers or lower courts with unpredictable rules, because it is categorical and not “case-by-case,” post, at 3. Indeed, today’s decision provides very clear guidance that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless breath tests, but as a general rule does not allow warrant-less blood draws, incident to a lawful drunk-driving arrest.

that sounds to me, especially given the other snippets ive posted, as if there are exceptions to having to get a warrant. but its very difficult to understand legal writing, and 67 pages of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Which you still ignored and asked questions that the fox article specifically addressed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Which you still ignored and asked questions that the fox article specifically addressed.

again, fuck off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
And the police department has acknowledged that this was improper.

what did they acknowledge? that the arrest was improper, or that the officer wanting a blood sample was improper?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

Just saw this covered on ABC news. The nurse refused because of "hospital policy." It really would be nice if they had checked Utah law for such situations. The guy they wanted to blood test had caused a fatal crash.

No, he had not caused a fatal crash.
The person who died was being chased by the police.

quote:

Exigencies can also arise in efforts to measure a driver’s blood alcohol level. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), for instance, a man sustained injuries in a car accident and was transported to the hospital. While there, a police officer arrested him for drunk driving and ordered a warrantless blood test to measure his blood alcohol content. This Court noted that although the warrant requirement generally applies to postarrest blood tests, awarrantless search was justified in that case because several hours had passed while the police investigated the scene of the crime and Schmerber was taken to the hospital, precluding a timely securing of a warrant. Id., at 770–
771.

quote:

It is true that a blood test, unlike a breath test, may be administered to a person who is unconscious (perhaps as a result of a crash) or who is unable to do what is needed to take a breath test due to profound intoxication or injuries.But we have no reason to believe that such situations are common in drunk-driving arrests, and when they arise, the police may apply for a warrant if need be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

if you had half a brain, the ability to discern and some moral decency, youd see im indeed trying to ascertain the truth. and in that, theres some insight as to why I told wayward to "fuck off" also.

do you enjoy being a literal bitch?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Which you still ignored and asked questions that the fox article specifically addressed.

again, fuck off.

poor widdle Bounty cant handle facts.
You tried Wayward, but you cant make the wilfully ignorant listen.
Sadly
even tried a edit post, sad

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I posted this before:

quote:

Exigencies can also arise in efforts to measure a driver’s blood alcohol level. In Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), for instance, a man sustained injuries in a car accident and was transported to the hospital. While there, a police officer arrested him for drunk driving and ordered a warrantless blood test to measure his blood alcohol content. This Court noted that although the warrant requirement generally applies to postarrest blood tests, awarrantless search was justified in that case because several hours had passed while the police investigated the scene of the crime and Schmerber was taken to the hospital, precluding a timely securing of a warrant. Id., at 770–
771.

somehow, that needs to be understood/reconciled with this from the majority opinion:

quote:

It is true that a blood test, unlike a breath test, may be administered to a person who is unconscious (perhaps as a result of a crash) or who is unable to do what is needed to take a breath test due to profound intoxication or injuries.But we have no reason to believe that such situations are common in drunk-driving arrests, and when they arise, the police may apply for a warrant if need be.

would be interesting to see what Utah's law is concerning consent and unconscious people when it comes to blood draws in situations like this.

but im done. this is has been a really distasteful interaction, and not for the reasons partisan hack lucy wants to believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

another relevant snippet:

quote:

One advantage of blood tests is their ability to detect not just alcohol but also other substances that can impair a driver’s ability to operate a car safely. See Brief for New Jersey et al. as Amici Curiae 9; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6. A breath test cannot do this, but police have other measures at their disposal when they have reason to believe that a motorist may be under the influence of some other substance (for example, if a breath test indicates that a clearly impaired motorist has little if any alcohol in his blood). Nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not. See McNeely, 569
U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 22–23).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Contrary to JUSTICE THOMAS’s contention, this balancing does not leave law enforcement officers or lower courts with unpredictable rules, because it is categorical and not “case-by-case,” post, at 3. Indeed, today’s decision provides very clear guidance that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless breath tests, but as a general rule does not allow warrant-less blood draws, incident to a lawful drunk-driving arrest.

that sounds to me, especially given the other snippets ive posted, as if there are exceptions to having to get a warrant. but its very difficult to understand legal writing, and 67 pages of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Which you still ignored and asked questions that the fox article specifically addressed.

again, fuck off. see if youre smart enough to figure out why im saying that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

cops mess up sometimes. all people do.

whats your point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

cops mess up sometimes. all people do.

whats your point?

The cop admitted that none of the criteria needed to get the blood drawn was present. But he arrested her anyway.

He was being a dick. Purposely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML



The nurse in a Utah hospital was simply following protocol. The police officer wanted blood from one of the patients who was suspected of committing a crime, maybe drunk driving. The nurse very calmly explained to him that she can only give him the blood if he had an electronic warrant, or the patient consented, or the patient were under arrest. The police officer became impatient and forcibly arrested the female nurse. Pissy police training in Utah or an idiot cop more probably?

Watch the video to get the full flavor of what happened!

ARREST!

Idiot cop, and the department is taking action.

Are they taking action?
Last I heard, he was still on full duty.
I know they have promised 'retraining' but seriously. That's just a paid day in the conference room with all the coffee and donuts you can scarf.

Salt Lake City, so he may well be a Mormon. I don't think they're allowed coffee, are they?

decaf? (which he obviously needs)

Heh.
To be fair, if he was stupid enough to be filmed arresting a medical professional because she'd refused to do something that would get her fired on his say so, then he's probably not good enough on long term planning to worry about being given his next flu jab with a turkey baster...