‘This is crazy,’ sobs Utah hospital nurse as cop roughs her up, arrests her for doing her job

[Darwin333]

Here is the full statement:

"On July 26th of this year, one of our reserve officers, William Gray was the victim in a horrific accident in northern Utah while working his full-time job as a truck driver. The suspect in this incident was fleeing from Utah State Highway Patrol, when he crossed into oncoming traffic and collided head on with Gray’s truck, severely injuring Gray, and killing himself. Officer Gray was flown to the University of Utah’s burn unit where he remains under their watchful, professional, and competent care.
Within the first hours of Officer Gray being admitted into the burn unit, an incident occurred between hospital staff and an officer from an agency in Utah who was assisting with the investigation. The Rigby Police Department was not aware of this incident until August 31st, 2017. The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act.
The Rigby Police Department would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the involved agencies, and trusts that this unfortunate incident will be investigated thoroughly, and appropriate action will be taken.
It is important to remember that Officer Gray is the victim in this horrible event, and that at no time was he under any suspicion of wrongdoing. As he continues to heal, we would ask that his family be given privacy, respect, and prayers for continued recovery and peace."

https://www.facebook.com/RigbyPoliceID/

 

[Darwin333]

One more thing, I didn't realize that this event happened in July. The video was obtained and released by the nurse and her attorney on Thursday of last week and it was only AFTER the public release of the video that any action was taken against the officer. So basically if there hadn't been video of this criminal activity the officer would have gotten away scott free, complete and total bullshit. All of these apologies didn't come until after the release of the video either.

 

[Puffnstuff]

So basically if there hadn't been video of this criminal activity the officer would have gotten away scott free, complete and total bullshit. All of these apologies didn't come until after the release of the video either.

That's what's wrong with out society. When people in authority do wrong everyone tries to cover it up rather than addressing it properly. I hope that her attorney takes them to the cleaners for what they did and with all of the publicity surrounding it people will be less afraid to come forward the next time something stupid like this happens.

 

[The Merg]

The difference is that we would be immediately arrested and charged, not given a paid vacation while they investigate.

The difference is that the police are expected to use force and arrest people. If they mess up, it is most appropriate to put them on leave while that is investigated to determine if and what they messed up. If it is determined that they did mess up then appropriate action should be taken, such as demotion, additional training, unpaid suspension, termination, or criminal charges.

I find it interesting that you refer to the suspension as a paid vacation. A vacation is a time for you to relax and enjoy yourself. Being put on administrative leave is not relaxing for the officer involved. You can't go to work, you can't see your co-workers, you have no involvement in anything with a case that is being investigated. It's probably one of the most stressful times for an officer. And administrative leave is not just for when an officer does something wrong. If an officer is accused of doing something wrong or whenever they are involved in a shooting or lethal use of force incident (even if justified), they end up on administrative leave.

In this case, the officer definitely appears to have screwed up big time. But, just like any other screw up, it needs to be investigated. Cops that I have talked to about this are all shaking their heads with what he did.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that blood draws need a search warrant, except in the case of consent or exigency circumstances, neither of which occurred here. So, even if the officer had PC to make an arrest, he still needed a search warrant. As part of the blood draw unit, he should have known that, but it appears they never got that training (part of the talks with the nurse and police department were about training that the officers should have had).

With that said, an officer does not have to follow an unlawful order. So, if the Lt. is the one that gave the order to make the arrest and detective thought it was unlawful, he could (should) have refused. However, it appears that the Lt. and the detective both were clueless about the search warrant court decision and the detective went forward with the arrest.

And to the point that the police initiated a high-speed pursuit, I wouldn't look at it that way. The police tried to legally stop a vehicle, which led them on a pursuit. The criminal drove across the double-yellow and collided with the truck driver. That's not the fault of the police. If you watch the video, the criminal even appears to intentionally drive into the truck.

Why this detective was so persistent in trying to draw blood from a victim is a good question. Until the detective or Lt. actually state why, we might never know.

With everything I've seen and read so far, the officer should be fired. Even without knowledge of the search warrant ruling, there was still no basis for drawing the blood and he admitted as much. A direct disregard for department policy and the law needs to be handled severely.

- Merg

 

[bshole]

The difference is that the police are expected to use force and arrest people. If they mess up, it is most appropriate to put them on leave while that is investigated to determine if and what they messed up. If it is determined that they did mess up then appropriate action should be taken, such as demotion, additional training, unpaid suspension, termination, or criminal charges.

I find it interesting that you refer to the suspension as a paid vacation. A vacation is a time for you to relax and enjoy yourself. Being put on administrative leave is not relaxing for the officer involved. You can't go to work, you can't see your co-workers, you have no involvement in anything with a case that is being investigated. It's probably one of the most stressful times for an officer. And administrative leave is not just for when an officer does something wrong. If an officer is accused of doing something wrong or whenever they are involved in a shooting or lethal use of force incident (even if justified), they end up on administrative leave.

In this case, the officer definitely appears to have screwed up big time. But, just like any other screw up, it needs to be investigated. Cops that I have talked to about this are all shaking their heads with what he did.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that blood draws need a search warrant, except in the case of consent or exigency circumstances, neither of which occurred here. So, even if the officer had PC to make an arrest, he still needed a search warrant. As part of the blood draw unit, he should have known that, but it appears they never got that training (part of the talks with the nurse and police department were about training that the officers should have had).

With that said, an officer does not have to follow an unlawful order. So, if the Lt. is the one that gave the order to make the arrest and detective thought it was unlawful, he could (should) have refused. However, it appears that the Lt. and the detective both were clueless about the search warrant court decision and the detective went forward with the arrest.

And to the point that the police initiated a high-speed pursuit, I wouldn't look at it that way. The police tried to legally stop a vehicle, which led them on a pursuit. The criminal drove across the double-yellow and collided with the truck driver. That's not the fault of the police. If you watch the video, the criminal even appears to intentionally drive into the truck.

Why this detective was so persistent in trying to draw blood from a victim is a good question. Until the detective or Lt. actually state why, we might never know.

With everything I've seen and read so far, the officer should be fired. Even without knowledge of the search warrant ruling, there was still no basis for drawing the blood and he admitted as much. A direct disregard for department policy and the law needs to be handled severely.

- Merg

Wow Merge, I am frankly shocked that you would go so far. It probably is a pipe dream that either the officer or his commander will get fired. Most probable outcome is an official reprimand of some kind, if even that.

 

[The Merg]

Wow Merge, I am frankly shocked that you would go so far. It probably is a pipe dream that either the officer or his commander will get fired. Most probable outcome is an official reprimand of some kind, if even that.

Who is Merge?

At least for a start it appears he was immediately removed from the blood draw unit.

- Merg

 

[JSt0rm]

Personally I would put the most retarded detectives I have on the blood draw unit.

 

[Darwin333]

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that blood draws need a search warrant, except in the case of consent or exigency circumstances, neither of which occurred here. So, even if the officer had PC to make an arrest, he still needed a search warrant. As part of the blood draw unit, he should have known that, but it appears they never got that training (part of the talks with the nurse and police department were about training that the officers should have had).

Us common civillions are constantly told, in courts of law, that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and still punished. Please explain to me in detail why the people who are tasked to uphold the law should be allowed to use an excuse that not even the lowest of us is allowed to use? If OSHA passes a new rule and they come to my jobsite after it has been implemented I don't get to claim ignorance but cops get to literally break the law and claim that they didn't realize they were breaking the law and all is good?

Why this detective was so persistent in trying to draw blood from a victim is a good question. Until the detective or Lt. actually state why, we might never know.

I'd like to know what your opinion is as to why the officer was so adamant about drawing this victims blood?

With everything I've seen and read so far, the officer should be fired. Even without knowledge of the search warrant ruling, there was still no basis for drawing the blood and he admitted as much. A direct disregard for department policy and the law needs to be handled severely.
- Merg

No criminal charges should be filed?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Personally I would put the most retarded detectives I have on the blood draw unit.

Oops they beat you to it.

 

[The Merg]

Us common civillions are constantly told, in courts of law, that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and still punished. Please explain to me in detail why the people who are tasked to uphold the law should be allowed to use an excuse that not even the lowest of us is allowed to use? If OSHA passes a new rule and they come to my jobsite after it has been implemented I don't get to claim ignorance but cops get to literally break the law and claim that they didn't realize they were breaking the law and all is good?

That's not what I said. That being said, when everything that you do is of a legal matter, mistakes will happen. So, every time an officer makes a mistake, they should be charged?

And if you are in violation of an OSHA rule, you are not arrested for that, you end up paying a fine for a violation. That's a big difference.

I'd like to know what your opinion is as to why the officer was so adamant about drawing this victims blood?

I have no idea why he was so adamant. I'm very curious myself.

No criminal charges should be filed?

To start, he needs to be fired. If it is determined that criminal charges are necessary, so be it.

- Merg

 

[OutHouse]

Here is the full statement:

"On July 26th of this year, one of our reserve officers, William Gray was the victim in a horrific accident in northern Utah while working his full-time job as a truck driver. The suspect in this incident was fleeing from Utah State Highway Patrol, when he crossed into oncoming traffic and collided head on with Gray’s truck, severely injuring Gray, and killing himself. Officer Gray was flown to the University of Utah’s burn unit where he remains under their watchful, professional, and competent care.
Within the first hours of Officer Gray being admitted into the burn unit, an incident occurred between hospital staff and an officer from an agency in Utah who was assisting with the investigation. The Rigby Police Department was not aware of this incident until August 31st, 2017. The Rigby Police Department would like to thank the nurse involved and hospital staff for standing firm, and protecting Officer Gray’s rights as a patient and victim. Protecting the rights of others is truly a heroic act.
The Rigby Police Department would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the involved agencies, and trusts that this unfortunate incident will be investigated thoroughly, and appropriate action will be taken.
It is important to remember that Officer Gray is the victim in this horrible event, and that at no time was he under any suspicion of wrongdoing. As he continues to heal, we would ask that his family be given privacy, respect, and prayers for continued recovery and peace."

https://www.facebook.com/RigbyPoliceID/

Thanks for posting this.

 

[pmv]

And to the point that the police initiated a high-speed pursuit, I wouldn't look at it that way. The police tried to legally stop a vehicle, which led them on a pursuit.
- Merg

Surely it takes two to constitute a pursuit? A pursued and a pursuer. Having failed to stop the vehicle, there must have been a choice made to pursue. Whether that choice makes the police culpable in any way is another matter, presumably depending on a huge number of factors, (I can believe that in a great many cases a reasonable person would not blame the police for cases when it turned out badly). But you can't just say it 'led them on a pursuit' as if they had no choice in the matter. They still made a choice to pursue.

I can't help wondering about that given I can't think of any other reason why they'd be so determined to get that blood sample.

 

[The Merg]

Surely it takes two to constitute a pursuit? A pursued and a pursuer. Having failed to stop the vehicle, there must have been a choice made to pursue. Whether that choice makes the police culpable in any way is another matter, presumably depending on a huge number of factors, (I can believe that in a great many cases a reasonable person would not blame the police for cases when it turned out badly). But you can't just say it 'led them on a pursuit' as if they had no choice in the matter. They still made a choice to pursue.

I can't help wondering about that given I can't think of any other reason why they'd be so determined to get that blood sample.

I'll give you that. Although, I think you can then agree that it was not just the police that caused the pursuit.

There are many theories as to why he wanted the blood sample. And it would be interesting to know if his pursuit (pun intended) of that was solely of his own volition or from the department he was assisting. What I mean by that is that it appears the other agency asked Salt Lake to try to obtain the blood sample, but it appears that the detective went farther than the original agency would have wanted.

- Merg

 

[mect]

The difference is that the police are expected to use force and arrest people. If they mess up, it is most appropriate to put them on leave while that is investigated to determine if and what they messed up. If it is determined that they did mess up then appropriate action should be taken, such as demotion, additional training, unpaid suspension, termination, or criminal charges.

I find it interesting that you refer to the suspension as a paid vacation. A vacation is a time for you to relax and enjoy yourself. Being put on administrative leave is not relaxing for the officer involved. You can't go to work, you can't see your co-workers, you have no involvement in anything with a case that is being investigated. It's probably one of the most stressful times for an officer. And administrative leave is not just for when an officer does something wrong. If an officer is accused of doing something wrong or whenever they are involved in a shooting or lethal use of force incident (even if justified), they end up on administrative leave.

In this case, the officer definitely appears to have screwed up big time. But, just like any other screw up, it needs to be investigated. Cops that I have talked to about this are all shaking their heads with what he did.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that blood draws need a search warrant, except in the case of consent or exigency circumstances, neither of which occurred here. So, even if the officer had PC to make an arrest, he still needed a search warrant. As part of the blood draw unit, he should have known that, but it appears they never got that training (part of the talks with the nurse and police department were about training that the officers should have had).

With that said, an officer does not have to follow an unlawful order. So, if the Lt. is the one that gave the order to make the arrest and detective thought it was unlawful, he could (should) have refused. However, it appears that the Lt. and the detective both were clueless about the search warrant court decision and the detective went forward with the arrest.

And to the point that the police initiated a high-speed pursuit, I wouldn't look at it that way. The police tried to legally stop a vehicle, which led them on a pursuit. The criminal drove across the double-yellow and collided with the truck driver. That's not the fault of the police. If you watch the video, the criminal even appears to intentionally drive into the truck.

Why this detective was so persistent in trying to draw blood from a victim is a good question. Until the detective or Lt. actually state why, we might never know.

With everything I've seen and read so far, the officer should be fired. Even without knowledge of the search warrant ruling, there was still no basis for drawing the blood and he admitted as much. A direct disregard for department policy and the law needs to be handled severely.

- Merg

They didn't even need to know the SC ruling. It has been explicitly illegal in Utah since 2007.

Porter, however, said “implied consent” has not been the law in Utah since 2007, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the Constitution permits warrantless breath tests in drunken-driving arrests, but not warrantless blood tests. She stressed that the patient was always considered the victim in the case and never was suspected of wrongdoing.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/...at-bars-taking-blood-from-unconscious-victim/

 

[The Merg]

They didn't even need to know the SC ruling. It has been explicitly illegal in Utah since 2007.

Porter, however, said “implied consent” has not been the law in Utah since 2007, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the Constitution permits warrantless breath tests in drunken-driving arrests, but not warrantless blood tests. She stressed that the patient was always considered the victim in the case and never was suspected of wrongdoing.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/...at-bars-taking-blood-from-unconscious-victim/

I think we are seeing the same thing, but looking at it from different angles. My point was that if he knew about the Supreme Court decision, there's no excuse for trying to draw blood without a search warrant. On the other side, he admitted he didn't have any one of the reasons the nurse provided as to a reason to draw blood. Looking at it from either side, he was in the wrong.

- Merg

 

[JSt0rm]

I think we are seeing the same thing, but looking at it from different angles. My point was that if he knew about the Supreme Court decision, there's no excuse for trying to draw blood without a search warrant. On the other side, he admitted he didn't have any one of the reasons the nurse provided as to a reason to draw blood. Looking at it from either side, he was in the wrong.

- Merg

we hire pants shitting retards to draw blood for the police.

 

[woolfe9998]

Wow Merge, I am frankly shocked that you would go so far. It probably is a pipe dream that either the officer or his commander will get fired. Most probable outcome is an official reprimand of some kind, if even that.

I disagree, but only because of the media coverage here. Most police misconduct isn't covered by the media and that's why it tends to go under-punished. I predict someone will get the ax here.

 

[OutHouse]

I can't help wondering about that given I can't think of any other reason why they'd be so determined to get that blood sample.

especially since the injured guy was a reserve cop doing his day job as a trucker.

 

[TheVrolok]

fucking lol. what a shit show.

Oh shit. Blue on blue. What are they going to do now?

 

[The Merg]

we hire pants shitting retards to draw blood for the police.

In my area, they have specific nurses that do the job. These nurses are the only ones allowed as they know the specific way that blood is to be drawn for police cases (for example they don't use alcohol wipes) and then are not needed to come to court.

To clarify about court... If a nurse other than one that is on an approved list performs the blood draw, they would then be needed to come to court.

- Merg

 

[JSt0rm]

In my area, they have specific nurses that do the job. These nurses are the only ones allowed as they know the specific way that blood is to be drawn for police cases (for example they don't use alcohol wipes) and then are not needed to come to court.

To clarify about court... If a nurse other than one that is on an approved list performs the blood draw, they would then be needed to come to court.

- Merg

What if someone gets a blood infection because the skin wasn't sterilized?

 

[The Merg]

It's still sterilized, but they don't use alcohol swabs. Offhand, I don't remember what it is that they use.

- Merg

 

[JSt0rm]

It's still sterilized, but they don't use alcohol swabs. Offhand, I don't remember what it is that they use.

- Merg

Oh ok. Some grimy bums skin critters shouldn't be getting into his blood.

 

[Svnla]

Utah hospital to cops "stay away from our nurses" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...om-contact-with-nurses-after-appalling-arrest

 

[Darwin333]

That's not what I said. That being said, when everything that you do is of a legal matter, mistakes will happen. So, every time an officer makes a mistake, they should be charged?

When it is a blatant violation of the law, yes, why shouldn't they be?

And if you are in violation of an OSHA rule, you are not arrested for that, you end up paying a fine for a violation. That's a big difference.

And if someone gets hurt on my jobsite because I am in blatant violation of OSHA rules I can, and likely will be criminally charged.

When cops break the law people often do get hurt, not only physically and emotionally either. Their lives can be turned upside down, they can lose their jobs and in some extreme cases their freedom. Granted some of that has a lot to do with our broken criminal justice system but when it starts with a cop who intimately knows how the system works breaking the law, it's hard not to put 99% of the blame on him.

Just so we are 100% clear, I am not talking about a mistake. I am talking about blatant disregard for the law, like the situation we are talking about now.

To start, he needs to be fired. If it is determined that criminal charges are necessary, so be it.

- Merg

You have as much information as they do, do YOU think he should be criminally charged?