An accident occurred between some dirtbag that was running from police and an innocent truck driver, who coincidentally happened to be a reserve police officer. A nice guy according to all his friends. When the accident happened his big-rig exploded in flames and he was severely burned. The dirtbag died. Now fast forward to the attending hospital’s burn unit in Salt Lake City.
NEWS STORY: “By all accounts, the head nurse at the University of Utah Hospital’s burn unit was professional and restrained when she told a Salt Lake City police detective he wasn’t allowed to draw blood from a badly injured patient.
The detective didn’t have a warrant, first off. And the patient wasn’t conscious, so he couldn’t give consent. Without that, the detective was barred from collecting blood samples — not just by hospital policy, but by basic constitutional law.
Still, Detective Jeff Payne insisted that he be let in to take the blood, saying the nurse would be arrested and charged if she refused.
Nurse Alex Wubbels politely stood her ground. She got her supervisor on the phone so Payne could hear the decision loud and clear. “Sir,” said the supervisor, “you’re making a huge mistake because you’re threatening a nurse.”
Payne snapped. He seized hold of the nurse, shoved her out of the building and cuffed her hands behind her back. A bewildered Wubbels screamed “help me” and “you’re assaulting me” as the detective forced her into an unmarked car and accused her of interfering with an investigation.” END
Can you imagine the lawyers tripping over themselves to get to that nurse now? The newspapers have jumped on this story and already lynched the cop, so who needs a trial? l
But, here’s one possible exception that may work in the cops favor and change the way you read this story. It seems all the news agencies missed it, but I found it: My question now is, was he requesting the blood draw under the authority of section §382.303 D.O.T. code – re Post-accident testing? This is mandatory testing for a commercial driver, unlike it would be for a regular licensed driver.
Here’s what it says and it makes a blood draw mandatory, and it’s the exception to all the criteria the hospital relied on:
(a) As soon as practicable following an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road in commerce, each employer shall test for alcohol for each of its surviving drivers:
(1) Who was performing safety-sensitive functions with respect to the vehicle, if the accident involved the loss of human life; or
(2) Who receives a citation within 8 hours of the occurrence under State or local law for a moving traffic violation arising from the accident, if the accident involved:
(i) Bodily injury to any person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or
(ii) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle.
(b) As soon as practicable following an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a public road in commerce, each employer shall test for controlled substances for each of its surviving drivers:
Use of Law Enforcement Post-Accident Testing: In lieu of administering a post-accident test, employers may substitute a test administered by on-site police or public safety officials under separate authority. The employer is allowed to substitute a blood or breath alcohol test and a urine drug test performed by such local officials, using procedures required by their jurisdictions. This may be particularly useful if that test can be administered before the employer can get to the scene. The employer must obtain a copy of the test results.