https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-for-doing-her-job/?utm_term=.1070ae4e6a02 This nurse was in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. she probably would have been fired if she allowed the blood to be drawn. And to top it off the suspect died, so an autopsy would have been done in any event. this cop needs to find another line of work.
Though the cop was aggressive, he was in the same situation where his supervisor was forcing him to collect the sample. A little bigger than just a lone bull it appears
the cop said he didn't have probably cause for a warrant. so he would be breaking the law by drawing the blood. A cop much like in the military is not required to follow an illegal directive. His actions and his supervisors are no better than the cops caught planting evidence in Baltimore. It would have been really easy, to back off and fight the judge for a warrant. they just wanted to take a short cut.
A few key points. 1) The implied consent clause the police claimed had been declared wrong over a decade ago. The police especially those assigned blood collection duty should have known. 2) The cop on the scene had no obligation to obey an illegal order...see note 1. 3) There was no excuse for the violence of the arrest. This is an example of authorities lack of judgment and ability to give a measured response. It seems they feel that resorting to force is the second step in law enforcement. It should be the last. They had better apologize and hope neither the hospital or nurse take action.
I'll agree with you on every one except your force continuum evaluation. Although not in this case, because this is an unlawful arrest. But, that's how it goes on a lawful arrest.
This is incorrect. Implied consent is still law in Louisiana. A person must first be under arrest for DWI before this is enforced. A person may refuse, if conscious, but implied consent is what allows the State to impose penalties for this refusal. An arrested unconscious person may not refuse. RS 32:661 No arrest is necessary, however, for mandatory tests under implied consent for Louisiana drivers operating a commercial vehicle. RS 32:414.2.C.(1) The act of operating a commercial motor vehicle shall constitute implied consent to be tested for any trace of alcohol, or controlled substances.
Apparently I misunderstood what was posted about implied consent. Yeah, it's still here in MS too. You still need probable cause to suspect a person is under the influence, though.
Dont know all the ramifications of the Utah law but very very poorly handled by the police. The law there and how to handle that situation needs to change.
