quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this isn't the whole story, but its a start:

quote:

Refusal to Provide Breath or Blood Sample Upon Request

When you drive on Utah's roads you are considered to have consented to giving a sample of your breath, urine, blood, or "oral fluids" to determine your BAC level while operating a vehicle. If you are asked to provide such a sample and you refuse your license is subject to an administrative suspension just as if you had taken the test and failed. If your license is to be suspended for a refusal to provide a breath or blood sample you may be able to challenge the suspension by requesting a hearing...

Officer Selects Type of Test

You should note that you are not permitted to insist on a specific type of test. The type of test to be administered is up to the officer and the officer may request multiple types of tests. Even if you have already performed one test, should you refuse additional requests from the officer for more testing, that refusal can be used as a basis for suspending your license. In short, the implied consent law places you at the officer's mercy as any interference on your part can be considered a refusal and you will suffer severe penalties...

We are unaware of any other constitutionally protected right than can be waived through implied consent. Nevertheless, Utah has passed a law that dictates your act of driving on a Utah road is consent to provide samples of bodily fluids. Furthermore, that consent cannot be withdrawn. Such a law seems to fly in the face of two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence.

Fortunately, the implied consent law has been under attack in the federal courts. However, these challenges are typically limited to challenges of warrantless blood draws. This is likely because there really is not a way to get a forced breath test, so anytime an office compels testing it is done through blood draw. Due to the challenges and success in federal courts, Utah officers will almost always seek a warrant before initiating a blood draw...

Finally, while you may refuse to answer some questions and you may refuse to do the field sobriety tests you are required to submit to a blood, urine, or breath test if lawfully requested to do so by an officer (see refusal section above). Exercise caution in deciding whether to refuse a test as the consequences can be severe.

http://pitcherholdaway.com/dui.php

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

i just posted an explanation of the law from lawyers in Utah. I just went back and looked, the copyright on the page is 2016.

I see the supreme court decision was from 2016 also.

the question now becomes whether or not the state conforms to federal interpretation or whether they continue to follow their own law.

quote:

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:

As far as many states having the same sort of implied consent law and it being established legal precedent, those are exactly the reasons that cases from three different states ended up in front of the supreme Court and were ruled unconstitutional. There is no longer legal precedent for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind

Wayward
That ruling doesn't apply if you have consented to the test. The implied consent law in Utah basically says that the moment you operate a vehicle on Utah roads you have given voluntarily consent to be tested.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

As far as many states having the same sort of implied consent law and it being established legal precedent, those are exactly the reasons that cases from three different states ended up in front of the supreme Court and were ruled unconstitutional. There is no longer legal precedent for that.

Spot on! The lack of understanding by several posters here seems desperate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

Can't speak for Utah, but here in MI if someone is suspected of DUI and refuses a breathalyzer test, then a blood test becomes mandatory by law, no warrant or consent required. So if that happened here the nurse would have been obstructing justice, or impeding an officer from performing his/her duties.

my first thought when I saw the post was to wonder what the actual law was in Utah, not hospital policy, but the law.

they may be the same, they may be different. itd be good to know.

its possible the cop didn't know the law and yes, saw the nurse as "obstructing justice."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Seriously, the cop didn't know the law?

That's his position?

FFS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Seriously, the cop didn't know the law?

That's his position?

FFS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Seriously, the cop didn't know the law?

That's his position?

FFS.

Seriously...that's his position. Seems like someone in the police department's legal department there is not keeping up on Supreme Court decisions that affect police department policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

it matters in this regard cd. if he didn't know the actual law, or the perfect interpretation of it, then he felt legally justified in his actions, including arresting the nurse, and was simply mistaken.

if he did know the law but tried to act contrary to it and compounded matters by arresting the nurse, then he was not mistaken, he was something else entirely.

either way though, the potential for a "political" conversation existed, which was my point back at the beginning when I asked Vincent what his point was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

it matters in this regard cd. if he didn't know the actual law, or the perfect interpretation of it, then he felt legally justified in his actions, including arresting the nurse, and was simply mistaken.

if he did know the law but tried to act contrary to it and compounded matters by arresting the nurse, then he was not mistaken, he was something else entirely.

either way though, the potential for a "political" conversation existed, which was my point back at the beginning when I asked Vincent what his point was.

I must say, Bounty, I was confused by your initial question. But seriously, ignorance of the law is no excuse especially for a law man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

it matters in this regard cd. if he didn't know the actual law, or the perfect interpretation of it, then he felt legally justified in his actions, including arresting the nurse, and was simply mistaken.

if he did know the law but tried to act contrary to it and compounded matters by arresting the nurse, then he was not mistaken, he was something else entirely.

either way though, the potential for a "political" conversation existed, which was my point back at the beginning when I asked Vincent what his point was.

I must say, Bounty, I was confused by your initial question. But seriously, ignorance of the law is no excuse especially for a law man.

Except that the arresting officer told another officer they did not have probable cause for a warrant, that was on the body cam footage, the officer was aware of the legal procedure and tried to bully his way through.

The detective needs to be fired and criminal charges filed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

it matters in this regard cd. if he didn't know the actual law, or the perfect interpretation of it, then he felt legally justified in his actions, including arresting the nurse, and was simply mistaken.

if he did know the law but tried to act contrary to it and compounded matters by arresting the nurse, then he was not mistaken, he was something else entirely.

either way though, the potential for a "political" conversation existed, which was my point back at the beginning when I asked Vincent what his point was.

I must say, Bounty, I was confused by your initial question. But seriously, ignorance of the law is no excuse especially for a law man.

Except that the arresting officer told another officer they did not have probable cause for a warrant, that was on the body cam footage, the officer was aware of the legal procedure and tried to bully his way through.

The detective needs to be fired and criminal charges filed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

it matters in this regard cd. if he didn't know the actual law, or the perfect interpretation of it, then he felt legally justified in his actions, including arresting the nurse, and was simply mistaken.

if he did know the law but tried to act contrary to it and compounded matters by arresting the nurse, then he was not mistaken, he was something else entirely.

either way though, the potential for a "political" conversation existed, which was my point back at the beginning when I asked Vincent what his point was.

I must say, Bounty, I was confused by your initial question. But seriously, ignorance of the law is no excuse especially for a law man.

Except that the arresting officer told another officer they did not have probable cause for a warrant, that was on the body cam footage, the officer was aware of the legal procedure and tried to bully his way through.

The detective needs to be fired and criminal charges filed.

He is now been put on leave and the DA is considering criminal charges.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nurse-refuses-blood-test-unconscious-patient-gets-cuffed-103358251.html