Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
From the article, it sounds like the police force has this team trained to draw blood themselves, so the police aren't asking the nurse to draw blood, they are asking to do it themselves. The nurse then (correctly) states that the policy in place as agreed on between the hospital and the PD doesn't allow for the PD to do so. It's a good policy, because without it, the police would be drawing blood without any consent.
Obviously, the police have made the request, the nurse has said "No, it's against policy," and when the Police didn't like that answer, the nurse got hospital admin on the phone.
I can understand from the police point of view, they are doing a death investigation, and although the blood test for the victim aren't particularly relevant, they want to gather as much information and evidence as possible. But policies exist for a reason.
I just don't understand how a polite conversation with the nurse all of a sudden turns into the police officer flipping a switch and dragging her out of the building. It's completely clear that she's just doing her job, and she's directing them to work it out with the hospital admin.
If the nurse let the police go in against policy, she probably would have lost her job.
|
I also don't see why at the time the police needed a sample of the blood at all.
the guy was an innocent victim. the bad guy perhaps, but not the truck driver.
would love to know about the “exigent circumstances and implied consent law” Payne quoted to the nurse.
no way the nurse should have been arrested like that because the cop didn't get his way.
wonder if after they arrested her the cops took the blood sample anyway.