ER nurse illegally detained?

[aaangel]

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-in ... rest-video

her interview...

[carlson1]

She wasn't arrested. She was set in the patrol car for about 20 minutes and "let go without charges." She may not have been arrested, but I do believe she was illegally detained.

Someone should be looking for employment.

I have to differ with that. Immediately after the person on the phone says "your making a huge mistake Payne goes off on her "no, we're done, we're done, you're under arrest" after which he grabs her, restrains her and cuffs her. In my book that pretty much looks like an arrest!

Not legal after until she is booked into the jail. Just detained.

[G.A. Heath]

My sister is a nurse and as a result my facebook feed has been overwhelmed by this story. I have seen more coverage on this than FLOTUS's shoes, Trumps ball cap, and Harvey all three combined as a result.

The officer(s) apparently wanted the blood draw to prove the truck driver (also a reserve officer) was not under the influence in order to protect him from possible legal action. Additionally the officers felt that because he had a CDL he has to give blood in the event he is involved in an accident that results in a fatality per a D.O.T. regulation.

The nurse, her supervisor, and the hospital management have a policy (along with an agreement with the 'arresting department') that brings them into compliance with HIPPA and other privacy concerns. The 'arresting officer' also works as an EMT and it seems has been accused of threatening, or actually committed, patient dumping on that hospital around the same time as that event.

I suspect that the officers felt that the DOT regulation that requires a truck driver to consent to a drug test or have their CDL revoked implied consent on the driver's part. Unfortunately the driver was unconscious and could not consent or refuse to do so. As a result the hospital has a policy and laws to follow which can result in civil, criminal, and professional sanctions.

The nurse was in a no win situation where if she did as she was ordered she could (probably would) lose her nursing license and face criminal charges. She could also face civil actions if the truck driver decided to pursue that avenue as well. In this case the PD the officer is with had/has an agreement with the hospital in place for just this situation so the officers involved in the blood draw process should be aware of this agreement and the legal processes behind it.

I do not know if this nurse was the charge nurse of the ER for that shift or not, but if she was then she is personally responsible for everything that happens in that ER. Even if she isn't she is responsible for that patient, if she is involved for his care and allows someone to perform an unauthorized and probably illegal procedure on her patient she once again opens herself up to criminal, civil, and professional sanctions.

Overall this officer was wrong, and his supervisor was wrong. Just following orders doesn't work with war crimes and it doesn't work when the officer knows, or should know, his actions and/or the orders he is following are not legal.

I hope Charles Cotton gets back online soon as I know this case is one he can share a lot of input on.

[WildBill]

Thank you for your perspective!

[DexMorgan]

She wasn't arrested. She was set in the patrol car for about 20 minutes and "let go without charges." She may not have been arrested, but I do believe she was illegally detained.

Someone should be looking for employment.

I have to differ with that. Immediately after the person on the phone says "your making a huge mistake Payne goes off on her "no, we're done, we're done, you're under arrest" after which he grabs her, restrains her and cuffs her. In my book that pretty much looks like an arrest!

Not legal after until she is booked into the jail. Just detained.

"Arrest" as defined in the criminal sense, the answer would be no. This incident would not appear on the nurse's criminal history because she was not booked into the jail or given a summons/citation.

However, "arrest" as defined in the sense of violating the nurse's civil rights, the answer would be yes, and it appears to be an "unlawful arrest" at that. The nurse was told she was under arrest by a police officer, handcuffed, and removed from the hospital to a police car. In a civil trial, that would certainly be considered an arrest (seizure of a person, handcuffed, and they are not free to go). This goes further than a simple "detention" for reasonable suspicion while an officer investigates a crime to develop probable cause. Incidents such as these are judged on a case by case basis, and in this case, I think a civil suit for unlawful arrest would certainly be found to be appropriate.

By the way, I'm a former police detective and now a critical care RN, so I speak of this with some degree of experience.

[nightmare69]

Classic POP, irritated the police. Just get a warrant for blood draw, it's so much easier.

[Liberty]

Classic POP, irritated the police. Just get a warrant for blood draw, it's so much easier.

In this case, permision from next of kin might have worked. The police were actually awkwardly trying to set up a defense for the injured.

[bblhd672]

The police were actually awkwardly trying to set up a defense for the injured.

Which, if true, makes the actions of the LEO's involved even more outrageous. Protection of their own at the expense of everyone else's lives, property, civil liberties and livelihoods is why law enforcement is loosing the respect of the people they are supposedly "serving."

[Keith B]

Here is a good article from a police officer on the laws and procedures. Looks like the officer and department will end up being liable for an unlawful arrest https://bluelivesmatter.blue/salt-lake- ... est-video/

[philbo]

This story is a long way from over and could very well prove be an instance where everybody was right and nobody was wrong. Stay tuned.

No, the nurse was right and the officer was clearly in the wrong here. This isn't a hospital policy, nor is it a HIPPA issue, nor is the fact that the police department had an agreement with the hospital relevant. The US Supreme Court determined that obtaining a blood sample without consent or a warrant is a violation of your 4th amendment rights. The cop was WRONG and deserves to be severely disciplined .

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 8_8n59.pdf

[G.A. Heath]

This article http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/31/u ... us-victim/ is where i saw the officer threatening to patient dump on the hospital

As he stands in the hospital parking lot after the arrest, Payne says to another officer that he wonders how this event will affect an off-duty job transporting patients for an ambulance company. “I’ll bring them all the transients and take good patients elsewhere,” Payne says.

I understand the constitutional issues, and didn't realize I had missed listing them as well, however an officer who is involved with blood draws should at the very least know the hospital he deals with policy on blood draws and the legislation that might influence said policy. He should also be aware of the agreements between his department and the hospital that involve his duties. He should also be aware of the supreme court decision and because he acted contrary to all these he should face civil, criminal, and even professional (as both an officer and employee of the ambulance company) penalties.

[Vol Texan]

It has been a long, long time since I wore a LEO badge, and I'm sure there are plenty of stories to justify his actions, but I keep coming back to one point...

And before anyone starts picking apart my arguments or terminology here, please remember I've not worn a badge since the early 90s. I recognize that (a) the danger faced by modern cops is significantly larger than I faced on a daily basis back then, (b) the methods that modern cops have advanced to keep pace with this threat, and (c) the terms I use to describe his actions may not be the properly accepted ones, and my antiquated method of explaining myself may be subject to all manner of interpretation. If anyone uses a fine-tooth comb to analyze the words I choose here, then you've missed the point that I'm trying to express in the simplest of language.

Whether this was an arrest or not, it WAS over the top from a violence perspective. Watching the first body camera left me with the impression that she was running or trying to avoid arrest, but while watching the second one, it was very clear that he was an aggressor here.

Irrespective of whether it was a lawful or unlawful arrest, or detainment or whatever, his method of engagement appeared to me to be more than what was required in this situation. She was not a violent criminal. She was not threatening. She was not a person who seemed to pose any threat to the officer, especially given the fact that other officers were present. I can't count the times that I calmly said the words, "Sir, I am going to place you under arrest. Please put that down, turn around, and place your hands behind your back." That gives the arrestee / detainee the opportunity to comply. But this officer did nothing of the sort. He said, "you're under arrest", and immediately went hands-on with her. He overpowered her and physically rushed her out of the building, as if she were a threat to his safety. He then appeared to use more pain compliance than I believe was necessary to enable the placing of handcuffs on her wrists.

Yeah, I'm pulling a Monday-morning quarterback here, but he simply did not give her the opportunity to comply. He was more forceful than I feel he should have been in this situation. A simple 'ma'am, I appreciate what you're saying, but I feel that you are inhibiting this investigation. I am going to place you under arrest now, and we can sort this out later. Please turn around and place your hands behind your back", might have made this whole thing a nothing sandwich. It may still have blown up in his face in the end, but it would not have nearly the backlash that he's getting right now. One of the followup stories I've seen now indicate a criminal investigation is going to take place against the officer. I believe it's warranted, from what I've seen - not just because of the arrest, but because his choice of methods to make that arrest was, in my opinion, not becoming of a law enforcement officer.

[anygunanywhere]

Until thugs such as these are investigated and prosecuted as aggressively as when regular citizens are investigated and prosecuted, the growing distrust of LEO will not reduce. It is a blatant double standard, and there are multiple layers of law enforcement and the justice system implicit in the lack of equality in eliminating thuggish behavior.

[n5wmk]

She wasn't arrested. She was set in the patrol car for about 20 minutes and "let go without charges." She may not have been arrested, but I do believe she was illegally detained.

I believe that she actually was arrested. Utah laws most likely differ from Texas laws, and I am not familiar with the Texas definition. I made the text bold below for emphasis.

From the Utah State Legislature website:

77-7-1. "Arrest" defined -- Restraint allowed.
An arrest is an actual restraint of the person arrested or submission to custody. The person shall not be subjected to any more restraint than is necessary for his arrest and detention.

From the above, the officer told her that she was under arrest, and he placed her in restraint.

77-7-2. Arrest by peace officers.
A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(1)
(a) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; and
(b) as used in this Subsection (1), "presence" includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;
(2) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe a felony or a class A misdemeanor has been committed and has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed it;
(3) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense, and there is reasonable cause for believing the person may:
(a) flee or conceal himself to avoid arrest;
(b) destroy or conceal evidence of the commission of the offense; or
(c) injure another person or damage property belonging to another person;
(4) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed the offense of failure to disclose identity under Section 76-8-301.5; or
(5) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person is an alien:
(a) subject to a civil removal order issued by an immigration judge;
(b) regarding whom a civil detainer warrant has been issued by the federal Department of Homeland Security; or
(c) who has been charged or convicted in another state with one or more aggravated felonies as defined by 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(43).

I don't see where any of the above points would authorize him to arrest her. It seems to me that he placed her under arrest just because she wouldn't follow his wishes to compel her to draw blood from a patient without a warrant, which IMHO, were not legal orders .

Let the courts now decide whether he overstepped his authority, and if so that this can be a lesson to all LE, Utah and elsewhere.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm always curious in situations like this: what would have been the outcome if there was no video? What if it were just an old fashioned "he said/she said." That's just a rhetorical question, BTW. I'm pretty confident of what the outcome would have been without video.

I just don't understand why this kind of stuff (police misconduct) seems to keep happening over and over and over. Yes, I know there are thousands of police/citizen interactions every day that are done correctly, with courtesy and professionalism. Yet, we continue to see these kinds of events frequently. Why? Lack of training? Lack of pride in professionalism? Habit because they get away with this kind of behavior most of the time? Stress? Emotional fatigue from dealing with certain types of people so often?

Maybe what we really need is an unbiased, in-depth study to find out the root causes of why this kind of thing happens. Maybe if we knew WHY, then maybe we could fix the problem. Because this is definitely a problem, IMHO.

I don't know that "we see them more and more" equates necessarily to "they are happening more and more". Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. 20 years ago, people didn't have cellphones with cameras in them, and cops didn't wear body cams. And even the body cams are a relatively new addition to policing....heck some departments don't even have them yet. The one thing we CAN definitely say is "more and more of these events are being recorded", and that's a good thing. If it builds enough community outrage, the police are then forced to be more accountable to that community, and accountability always improves policing.

Does it sometimes make an individual officer's job harder or more complicated? Almost certainly it does. But it also helps to preserve the "serve and protect" ethos of good police work. I can't claim to speak for cops, never having been one; but like a lot of us here, I am friends with a lot of people who either are currently working as police, or have done so in the past. All the ones that I know are good decent citizens with a due regard for the law and the Constitution. I am willing to bet that most of them are appalled at the kind of behavior exhibited by officer Payne (who is ironically named, n'est pas?). Why appalled? Two reasons:

1. The video has gone viral, and their jobs have just gotten harder by simple virtue of a drain in up-front goodwill from citizens, increased suspicion of police motives and procedures from the citizenry, a reduced willingness by citizens to be cooperative, and and increased willingness to challenge police authority. This is no longer a case of being able to claim police racism against young black men with no visible means of support, driving cars they cannot demonstrably afford. The unjustly arrested person is a white woman with a good education, in a well-paid middle class job.....the kind of job that most people hold in high regard. The unjustly arrested person never exhibits any hostility or physical threat toward the officer until she is placed in cuffs, at which point her physical actions become self-defensive in nature. The unjustly arrested person is demonstrably patient with the arresting officer prior to her arrest; she is calm and rational; and she is demonstrably trying to both obey the law AND be an obedient employee. Officer Payne's actions are completely indefensible; any right-minded cop knows that (and most are right-minded); and this video won't help their reputations in the community.
2. Most police officers will spend at least some time inside whatever local emergency room that serves their area. They will either be there in custody of someone needing medical attention; interviewing a victim needing medical attention; or themselves needing medical attention. Officer Payne has poisoned the well......especially in SLC. Hopefully, officers in other cities, as well as ER personnel in other cities, will be able to reassure one another that this event hasn't affected the quality or nature of their very necessary working relationships. In SLC, that is going to be a lot more difficult, but it is still possible IF local officers are personally willing to vocally condemn what happened to the nurse and align themselves on the right side of the issue. That may be made complicated by simply not being allowed to talk about a still pending matter while on duty. What happens privately, during the normal off-duty socializing that often takes place between local LEOs and ER staff will hopefully offset this.

The ONE thing that would immediately set the situation right, but would carry some element of civil liability risk, would be for officer Payne to ask his chain of command for an opportunity to call a press conference, publicly apologize without qualification, and asking nurse Wubbels for her forgiveness. She has not yet initiated any punitive legal actions, for which she would be well within her rights to do so. She seems to be exhibiting a great deal of forbearance here. My guess is that she would accept the apology, and the matter would be allowed to die.