Video release allows untrained public to make 'ill-informed judgments' of officers, letter says
re: "The Salt Lake Police Association on Monday broke its silence regarding
the widely publicized arrest of a University Hospital nurse by two officers,
saying the union is "extremely concerned and dismayed" at how the city
has handled the investigation and release of information."The
police union should be more concerned with how the officers handled the
situation with nurse Alex Wubbels. The city's response was not the
problem, the officers' actions were.
To be a LEO is an honor.Payne, egged on by his ill-informed Watch
Commander, stained that honor.Fire them both.
@Straydog - Layton, UTI'm less interested in the police
officer's side of the story and more interested in what Salt Lake County
Attorney Sim Gills decides to do with him.
@ Straydog:The main reason the hospital couldn't allow the
blood draw was not HIPAA, but because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a
warrantless blood draw without the patient's consent violates the
"search and seizure" provision of the U.S. Constitution. Also, I'd
be more suspicious of a hasty legal decision than one that the hospital took the
time to think through. Ninety minutes is not very long to locate an attorney
after hours and analyze a constitutional issue.
In my opinion that officer had a shoot first mentality, that is what needs to
I may be the only one who feels this way, but something doesn't quite add
up for me with the accepted narrative - that the nurse was 100% in the right and
the police 100% in the wrong.The 90 minute wait for one thing, only
to have their request denied after all that time, not because of the law but
because of hospital policy. I wrote medical software and enforced thee HIPAA
privacy rules for the U of U Hospitals and Clinics. This was a judgement call,
not a clear violation of HIPAA rules. Had that judgement call not taken 90
minutes, it night have ended differently.If it is found that the 90
minute delay was longer than it needed to be, then it points to someone
stalling, and that may well amount to obstruction.Just saying we
should listen to the police officer's side as well.
It is ironic that most of the comments here are clamoring for the "rule of
law", and then, without so much as a law degree, the commenters then proceed
to oversimplify what is actually a incredibly complex legal issue-- thus making
themselves prosecutor, judge, and jury to the police officers, and inevitable
making demands that are exactly opposite of the rule of law.The
actions of the police officers were reprehensible, but not necessarily and as
obviously illegal as many are claiming, and as many in the media are leading us
to believe. This is why the officers still have their jobs. One only has to
google this case and look at multiple articles to find many salient arguments
for the positions of both the officers and the nurse.
Very disappointing. Clearly distorting the truth to the point that they are no
longer credible. I find this quite frightening.
Stephen Hartney, the police union's president is only trying to keep his
cronies out of trouble and to keep them on the job so they can continue to do
the same old, same old junk. Me, along with the Nurse's of this country
are supporting Alex Wubbels. She was doing her job according to the hospital
policy. The PD also had agreed in 2016 to this policy. If they didn't
pass this information on to their officers, it is the PD's fault and all
officers should have in-services once a month or more often. Jeff Payne has
been there long enough to KNOW THE POLICY, he just chose to go into his
'my way or the highway' agenda. That guy has anger issues. If the
Union supports this guy and chooses to pat him on the wrist and say,
"don't do it anymore", then there is going to be a huge outcry from
this Nation's Nurses.
Throwing a nurse into the paddy wagon for her doing her job is not exactly a
situation where you can blame others having a problem with you! We live under
rule of law. That behavior doesn't belong here.
@Say No to BOTwo parts of that DOT regulation you cite caught my
eye: the words "practicable", and "employer"."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..."To me, that looks like a
regulation that puts the onus of testing on the company that the truck driver
(RIP) was working for; the police are not his employer. That said, the police
could have demanded a blood draw on a CDL driver or any other driver under
implied consent -- if, and only if, they had probable cause, which they
didn't. Now let's say that everyone is wrong, and DOT 49
CFR part 382.303 or some other law or reg does allow them to draw blood from a
CDL driver no matter what... If that were the case, then here are the real
questions: a). Why was a clause about that not written into the policy that
Nurse Wubbles printed out? How was she supposed to know? b). If Payne knew
that, then why didn't he cite that instead of lunging at her? c). Why are
no lawyers bringing this up?
That letter causes me to be more concerned that ever with the latitude some
think police officers have. Scary.
I find Mr. Hartney's comments disgusting. Look, everyone knows this was an
extreme overreach of power and authority by SLC Police. Let me give
Mr. Hartney something to think about. If you are surprised at any of the
reaction you've seen so far from any elected or appointed official, just
you wait for the anger to boil over should Payne and Tracy not get fired.I was driving alongside a SLC police office yesterday, and I
couldn't help but look at him with a degree of mistrust. That alone should
tell you why Payne and Tracy need to go. The fact is, public trust is on the
line, and everyone is watching what happens next very, very closely.
Nurse Alex Wubbels was arrested, placed in a police car, and then promptly
charges were dropped and she was released.As soon as this incident
went public Mayor Biskupski and Police Chief Brown immediately issued a public
apology ....... for two reasons:#1 They wanted to stem the national
outcry and public condemnation.#2 They wanted to avoid a lawsuit that
Nurse Alex Wubbels would have won without question.The Salt Lake
Police Association can moan and groan all they want but "it's all over
but the shouting".
Several have commented that the officers were within the law to do what they did
because of Utah law regarding commercial drivers. If this was May 2016, you all
would have been absolutely correct. However SCOTUS made a clarification on the
US Constitution, the supreme law of the land even in UT, back in June 2016 in a
case called Birchfield vs North Dakota. SCOTUS ruled that the 4th Amendment
prevented using implied consent to obtain blood, instead you have to get a
warrant to get blood. So using the mathematical formula US Constitution >
Utah law and US Constitution > LT Tracey's law, we see what they were
trying to do was illegal and there was no justification for Wubbels arrest. You
are not allowed to arrest someone for obeying the law. And ignorance of the law
is no excuse and just plain stupid when you are being a jerk rubbing your false
interpretation of the law in someone's face like the two officers who are
suspended did. Maybe SLPD can hire Barney to make some training films to help
learning challenged officers know the law.
Quote: "The premature release of body cam footage is particularly
demoralizing as it allows the public who have not trained as police officers to
make what often amounts to biased and ill-informed judgments of the police,"
the letter states.Response: "The premature restraint of a nurse
supervisor is particularly demoralizing as it allows the police officers who
have not been trained as hospital employees to make what often amounts to biased
and ill-informed judgments of healthcare professionals."
#OFFICERS DEFINED THEMSELVES
"Imagine if I were to tell you there is a large group of government
employees, with generous salaries and ridiculously cushy retirement pensions
covered by the taxpayer, who enjoy incredible job security and are rarely held
accountable even for activities that would almost certainly earn the rest of us
prison time. When there is proven misconduct, these government employees are
merely reassigned and are rarely dismissed. The bill for any legal settlements
concerning their errors? It, too, is covered by the taxpayers. Their unions are
among the strongest in the country. No, I’m not talking about
public-school teachers."by A. J. Delgado July 21, 2014, National
Review, "It’s Time for Conservatives to Stop Defending Police"
@MarkYou are wrong about the guy driving "a non-CDL vehicle."Here is the truth from another DN article about the case: "On July
26, Gray, a truck driver and reserve member of the Rigby Police Department, was
driving a semitrailer in Sardine Canyon near Wellsville when he was hit by a
motorist who was fleeing police."The request for the blood draw
came from the Cache County crash investigators. It is perfectly normal to make
such a request, per federal law under DOT 49 CFR, part 382.303, which says:
"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..."We've been led down the primrose
path by this social media justice episode.This is more than a
badge-heavy cop who gets his jollies making victims suffer through a blood draw.
The police union clearly wants to hide unprofessional conduct.As I
said before, if SLC Chief of Police had a shred of leadership in his bones, he
would have fired these two officers immediately.
If I remember correctly, the police were chasing a "bad" guy, which
helped cause the accident, whom died at the scene, then innocent unsuspecting
driver that he ran into, who happened to have a CDL, yet driving a non-CDL
vehicle, which means CDL doesn't mean a thing, was knocked out cold, which
means the hospital must protect his rights until he is revived and found fit to
mentally answer questions about the chase which nearly ended his life, which the
police were only there at the hospital to CYA the whole situation. Body cams
were legally obtained a month later and released to the public, Nurse has same
law of protection equal to being a Police or Fire person to mean that officers
arrested a fellow officer doing her duty as instructed by State Hospital policy
and according to Utah State law. It looks like two laws don't make it
right. I will be following this case to the end.
The president of the police union saying that civilians aren't trained.as
police officers so we can't judge officers who are accused of wrong doing
is a dangerous idea. We need civilian control over police forces so that we
don't have a police state
It is important to understand the significance of the phrase "no reason
whatsoever." It means that the Police Union considers an officer losing his
temper and assaulting an innocent citizen to be perfectly acceptable and nothing
unusual. People with opinions such as this are playing a pivotal role in the
dismissal of abusive and irresponsible officers. As long as this core problem
persists, we are all in danger.
"...later adding that release of the video also 'creates an explosive
atmosphere for no reason whatsoever.'" Oh that's rich! Can they
not see the irony there?"...it allows the public who have not
trained as police officers to make what often amounts to biased and ill-informed
judgments of the police," No, the video informs us quite well. If there is
some legal nuances that we ill-informed civilians don't understand, then
what are they? a). He had no warrant.b). The patient wasn't
under arrest.c). The patient did not give consent, not even
"implied", for lack of any probable cause.I'd say
that's pretty straight-forward to most "ill-informed" civilians.
Why didn't the officer understand that?This is yet another one
of those things that give unions a bad name. The cat was out of the bag, so had
City officials not done any damage control, as the union would have preferred,
things would have been much worse. Yes, the union works for the cops, but the
City works for the people, not the union. Get that straight.
According to DOT FMCSA regulation 49 CFR, you have eight hours to collect a
blood sample from a CDL driver after a fatal accident.Blue Devil is
telling us there is no law governing here, but he's wrong. It is a federal
law.But here in Utah laws don't apply.Remember the
bobbing-and-weaving bus driver and how long it took to resolve that? Watch for
trains, trucks and buses. Drivers have special rights in Utah.In
this case, the truck driver, recently deceased, was innocent. But the law is
clear that being at fault is not a consideration. Ambulance chasers and deep
pockets make the blood draw all the more important.
The video speaks for itself. No one else needed to do anything. Sorry Union,
please call it as it was shown. Actions really do speak louder than words. Be
careful you don't make things worse for the good officers.
Of course they stick up for this officer who let a power trip go to his head.
That is what the blue line union does, make pathetic excuses for behavior which
should definitely disqualify someone from ever working in law enforcement again.
I repeat, both the detective and the supervisor should never be able
to work in law enforcement again.
My uncle was a county sherriff for decades, and his eldest son also was in law
enforcememt as a UHP officer. As a youngster I had alot of questions for my
uncle, especially regarding his service revolver, yes back then they didnt have
glock 40mm's. One of our conversations that I remember was he told me that
he only puts his hand on his service weapon as a last resort, that even pulling
your weapon from its holster required a written report to justify it, in other
words dont pull out your pistol unless you intend to use it, or you were subject
to disciplinary action by the agency.The question I have is why has
this philosophy gone away with our policing agencies, it appears officers have
carch blanc to pull out their gun at anytime they deem it necessary. And just a
matter of my own opinion I feel the number of police officer involved shootings
have gone up and certainly the number of unarmed shooting deaths at the hands of
a police officer has risen.There needs to be a level of training
given to police officers to first deescalate a situation before resorting to
lethal force, or the misuse of arresting authority of a innocent civilian in
this case with nurse Wubbels.
Without release of this video the victim, Nurse Alex Wubbels, would never have
received an apology.
"Union says city 'made pariahs' of officers in U. nurse
arrest" "Video release allows untrained public to make
'ill-informed judgments' of officers, letter says"And
by this short statement the police union has nullified the "few bad
apples" narrative. The only imaginable "training" that would change
my judgment of what I saw in the video would require being trained into
disrespecting the law and the dignity of citizens.
A few years ago an unarmed 20 yr old was gunned down in the 7 eleven parking lot
at 2000 so and state. The officer responded to a call of a possible robbery at
gun point, when the officers got there the held up two suspects as they walked
out the door, a third suspect walked out behind them with earbuds in his ears he
walked west into the parking lot the whole time while a police officer followed
with his gun drawn yelling at the man to stop, when the man turned around his
hands went up in the air then he reached for his left pocket to take out his
cell phone to turn off his music, the cop put three rounds in his chest - dead
at the scene. No gun.The county DA and internal police investigation
deemed it a justified shooting because the cop believed he had a gun and feared
for his life, yet there was never a gun, they only went off of what a bystander
said when they called and reported the incedent of a possible gun.So
a young man lost his life at the hands of a south salt lake cop based off of a
false report of a gun. Cops hear gun and immediately go into shoot mode.A cop is told they cant draw blood, so they go into arresting innocent
civilian mode. The question Is why ?
Typical obfuscation. Target the PD for insufficient training. Yes, the union
mouthpiece did not out and out defend the accused (how does one defend the
indefensible?), but there was more than enough misdirection in the memo to see
the goals here. Transparency is paramount in these situations and all the
weekend lawyers out there can debate merits until they're blue in the face.
It's all there in living color. The adage that a picture is worth a
thousand words is applicable and I remain utterly appalled at the lack of
professionalism and requisite self control on display by those who are to
"protect and to serve."
@Alonso Quixano" "if you operate a CMV, you shall be deemed
to have given your consent to alcohol testing"."Let's
play along for a minute with what you are saying. You call it a statute, but I
think you would find statutes in laws, not in a Drivers Handbook, but let's
clear up your confusion.If what you say is true, there are two ways
to take it.A. Anyone, anytime, at any place and under any
circumstances can demand a blood test of a CDL. Of course that's not the
case, but you said this is the beginning and end of the 'statute'. To
quote you, "End of statement."B. If under lawful
provisions, legal considerations including the 4th Amendment, following lawful
policies and procedures, a blood test is requested by authorized agencies or
persons, your consent to the test is implied.Of course option B is
correct. I hope this helps you to understand that there was no attempt at a
legal blood draw. The officers were dead wrong. The Department even admitted
that policies were not followed. Officer Tracy admitted that he could not get a
warrant in order to get a legal blood draw. I'm pretty sure that the
stories say that's why he released the nurse.
Well!??? Either you aren't looking at the same footage as I am or are a bit
bias. True, Both police officers acted in an unprofessional manner. True, They
mishandled and treated the nurse roughy. True, they should be sanctioned...
However... I do not think they should be fired. One bad decision should not
cause the loss of their and their families income. Suspension perhaps? I also
think Nurse Wubbles had the right to release the video! It was her right,
however again... perhaps the whole situation was mismanaged from the start. I am
glad that protocols are being firmly in place. This needs to blow over and
Has the police union already forgotten how Det. Jeff Payne said he could
retaliate against the hospital in his role as a Gold Cross paramedic.
“I‘ll bring them all the transients and take good patients
elsewhere.”?Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely?It is hard to defend the indefensible.
Police Unions should be outlawed. Their statements are so self serving that
they have zero credibility.There is one glaring fact with this case.
I haven't been a police officer for over 28 years and even I
know that the Implied Consent didn't apply in this situation. There was
none, commercial drivers license or not. Yep the law has changed a little since
I was a cop, but implied consent would have never applied in this case.Bottom line, these two should be fired. The body camera footage leaves
nothing to the imagination. Pure and simple the cop screwed up, big time.
There is no question of that. The nurse was arrested improperly. They have
made all cops look bad.You can say what you want about the SLC
Police Admin and the Mayor. Both apparently are in over their heads. Hopefully
Jackie will be a one term wonder and the next mayor does a house cleaning of the
PD admin.Frankly, in all this hubbub, Mr. Gray has been turned into
a forgotten man. He was nothing more than a victim in this case. My heart goes
out to his family at his passing.
Several people here are saying because the driver held a CDL, and was in an
accident, that blood was to be drawn and no consent was needed. But the
problem is section 1.3 of the CDL says nothing about the fact that blood could
be demanded on demand without any charges of any wrong doing. It's a far
stretch to read that text and make that quantum leap. 1.3 states the penalties
for driving with a blood alcohol level about .04 percent, and what those
consequences are.It does not say that if you are the victim of an
accident, one that you had no part in causing, that you give up your rights.
And no one, even the police, were accusing the driving of any wrong doing. At
least that is the last I heard. Has the driver been charged with anything?
Was he being accused or investigated for anything? 1.3 does not
give the police the right to demand blood on demand without cause. I have no
idea how anyone read that into that section.
The Union is accusing the public as being untrained and blaming the
"fake" news for ill-informing us??? Since the last Presidential
Elections we have as a public learned that "Trumponian" speech is wrong.
This mafia-style based organization is unconstitutional, demonstrated by this
example of propaganda rhetoric intent on causing contention and division rather
than redressing grievances of injustice and inequality. We the People have been
falsely arrested on trumped up charges, victims of unwarranted searches and
seizures. We the People are 1st hand witnesses to the corruption of police and
government authority. Nazi Germany, as Dieter Uchtdorf, a 1st hand witness, told
us last Saturday, began by hate speech that considered people as inferior. It
divided and angered the Germans to the point where the rights and liberties of
the German Jews, one of the targeted groups, where taken away, and they were
"indefinitely" detained in Camps where they were re-educated, tortured
and murdered by psychiatrists. It is you, the Union, who are ill-informed about
history and untrained in speech etiquette.
The reality is the union is trying to save face with its members with their
publicly realeased "outrage ".Where was their outrage when this
all went down weeks ago? It is now after feedback from their officers that
they "speak up".What does the union do to train officers? Do they
tell the guys to learn their duty and act accordingly?
Wrong, it was the thugery in the officer's actions that made them pariahs.
Oh I forget, we live in the era of passing the buck, evading personal
responsibility for our actions, so why shouldn't the police and their union
try the same strategy? In the real world the two perpetrators would have been
long gone based on the instances of misconduct before the latest incident. If
this is what Police Unions consider professional conduct that explains a lot,
police brutality, the murder of unarmed, coorperative citizens etc. it seems to
me that the Union is upset to have some daylight exposing the bad behavior of
its members when they have been so successful in keeping hidden away in Internal
In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States in Birchfield v. North Dakota
held that both breath tests and blood tests constitute a search under the Fourth
Amendment, concluding that requiring breath tests is constitutional without a
search warrant, however, requiring more intrusive blood tests involving piercing
the skin is not, as the goal of traffic safety can be obtained by less invasive
means. Specifically addressing implied consent laws, the court in the
Birchfield opinion stated that while their "prior opinions have referred
approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws" that "there
must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have
consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads" and "that
motorists could be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are
'reasonable' in that they have a 'nexus' to the privilege of
driving"So regardless of the circumstances, the consent to give
a "blood sample" would not have been legal. The driver of the truck was
the victim, therefore the blood sample would not meet the test for reasonable
search. The Nurse was right to stand her ground, the Police Officer was wrong
The union says judgements should be "based on the facts and not on emotion
or public consternation." Without the public outcry this entire incident
would likely have been swept under the rug and never seen the light of day.
Thank goodness for 'public consternation.'
So let's be clear here. The police union would have preferred that this
incident be swept under the rug, that Nurse Wubbels forgets about it and moves
on, that the police department does nothing for over a month to extend to
infinity, that body cams not be used or released, that police can abuse their
authority and bully citizens with lies in order to get what they want (the blood
draw), and when that is less effective, they can throw a nurse around, double
cuff her, put her in a hot car, and after all that, the public is too uneducated
to understand how this works?The police union makes themselves to
look pretty uneducated about what police procedure and authority is and what
rights of citizens are. Perhaps the union needs to get some training. They act
like this policy and procedure, and rights were a new thing that started that
day and they didn't know about them. Hmm. Criticize away guys. We can
take it. But you are not helping the tarnished image that this image brought to
Why does it take sooooooooo long to conduct an investigation into what happened?
Geez, any business could figure this out in days and here we are two months
later.Most cops do a very good job. These two guys blew it. Punish
them and let's move on. We all learned something from this.
The union has several good points. With the most significant issue is if the
legal update training that would have identified the change in the implied
consent law was not given to these two officers the city is fully to blame
because of their "failure to train."It is the
Administration's responsibility to train these officers, if they operated
using outdated legal guildence of the city attorney, the administration is to
blame. It is also to blame if the city made agreements and failed to follow its
own chain of command in informing it officers about those agreement. The
administration seems to be acting in a cowardly manner, and not accepting
responsibility for its failure to lead.Lay off the officers. From
what I've read, the city administration shares the majority of the blame.
The mayor and chief are to busy trying to protect their own jobs.
It's a union's job to defend its members, whether right or wrong. So
not surprised by this comment.
This police officer Payne is anEMT for an ambulance company and knows well the
University of Utah Hospital’s blood draw procedures . No excuse for
arresting the nurse and abusing her civil rights.
Common sense says you need a warrant to get someone's blood. A police
officer should now this. He was simply over stepping his authority as some cops
do. It goes to their heads quickly. The proof is the video. One bad apple
makes them all look bad. When that's not the case.
This is why we should limit police unions. Anybody can tell that these police
officers should not be carrying weapons representing the citizens. We are
responsible for this environment in which many unarmed people are shot by police
each year. The response of the union is to circle the wagons, when their
response should be that those officers are not representative and they should
loose their jobs. When I consider that even my teenage son knows he might loose
his job as a grocery store bagger if he doesn't smile and treat customers
kindly, what in the world are these union officials thinking. I think the
problem is worse than just these two officers.
Bad officers paint the whole profession with a bad brush. It is incidents like
this -- the 1 in 100,000 -- that are the cause of much of the polarization in
America today. I wish these officers well in the future, in another
The police union crawls out from the shadows to illustrate exactly why we have
overly aggressive, civil-rights violating officers still on the force. Now we
know where the root of the problem is. Thanks for that!
The real victim here is public safety. Jackie was, once again, quick to throw
the police under the bus.If I'm a SLCPD officer, I know she
doesn't have my back. I am not going to walk into gunfire for her.While she "takes a knee," the guys on the street are taking their time
getting to a scene because they want lots of officers as witnesses.Jackie may be 100% right here, but she is oh so wrong.
Blood should have been drawn ASAP.This guy was a commercial driver
operating a semi, involved in a fatal accident.The city needs to
figure this out.The last person to make the call here is the
nurse.Before I start getting hate mail here, I am NOT saying the cop
did the right thing. I'm not saying the driver was guilty of anything.
I'm just stating the facts about the situation.
What is it with lawyers? Last week, Mr Diehl's lawyer told the Federal
Court that regular layman would not understand the complexities of Mr
Diehl's corruption case. This week, the Salt Lake Police tells us what we
saw on video was too complex for us. Therefore, it blurs our understanding of
the process. What? This is typical union response when one of their own is
disciplined for bad behavior. I am a strong supporter of police, but I do not
close my eyes to their mistake either. Is this case so bad they had to be fired?
I don't think so. Corrective training seems to be in order. In addition,
update all policies and make sure every single police officer had read and
understood the policies and the consequences of not following them.
My son-in-law is a doctor. As he looked at the video, his comments were: the
nurse was in a no-win situation. She was clearly seen talking to her
supervisors, she is following hospital procedure, she knows she cannot violate
policy or she could be fired, or worse lose her license to practice. She was
nothing more than a spokesman for the hospital. If the police were so determined
to get the sample, they should have arrested the hospital administrators at the
top, or gone back and received a warrant. What they did was not professional or
legal. This nurse has civil rights like everyone else. Be really honest and ask
yourself, if you would have liked to have been this nurse or worse if it was
your wife, or daughter, or mother treated in this manner. I am sure all of the
posters here respect and support law enforcement but, mistakes happened in all
professions including law enforcement. We need to quickly correct the mistakes
when they happen so that the trust we want with our officers is always positive.
Why is the same police administration, inept in handling the situation at best,
sinister in covering it up at worst, still empowered by the mayor to render a
decision in this case?The union is right in questioning the City and
Department's administrative intelligence and motive.
''Payne was sent to University Hospital to collect blood from a man
injured in a fatal crash. But Wubbels — declined to tell Payne where the
patient was or allow him to draw blood.'' Fatal Crash? Nothing more?
DesNews headline ''No fatal crashes occurred over Pioneer Day weekend,
UHP says By Ben Lockhart Published: July 27, 2015'' with this photo
byline ''Police officers perform a show with their motorcycles during
the Days of '47 KSL 5 Parade on Friday, July 24, 2015 in Salt Lake
City.'' The photo listed this ''Salt Lake City Police
DepartmentIn this July 26, 2017, frame grab ''. The purpose of
a blood draw is for learing about alcohol or drugs in the blood, after a
fatal crash. So one DesNews article says no fatal crash from about July 24 to
27th, and the photo frame is July 26. When, where, who, what, how and why was
the fatal crash? DesNews. July 24, 2017, lists ''Murray man killed
in Midvale motorcycle crash'' with a date of July 23, 2017. or
Desnews July 25, 2017 2 killed, 12-year-old injured in head-on crash.
'' Drugs can remain in the blood for 6 weeks. Is the Midvale crash
what was referred to? Or some other?
I’m very supportive of our Police in most situations. I believe they have
a very difficult job. However, in this case, the video is all the evidence
needed to determine how pathetic the police officers behaved.Yes,
the Union is doing it’s job and the officers deserve a fair hearing, but
what jury will be persuaded to acquit the officers after simply hearing the law
explained and watching the video. Trial should last about one hour. My
prediction is this will be settled out of court.The fact that the
city handled things poorly is no surprise given the incompetent individual who
occupies the Mayor’s office.These officers have no one to
blame but themselves.
Hmmmmm. The union rep states that had the city's attorney provided
training and information to the police on law and policy changes there likely
would not have been a problem. I am going to try the same
"ignorance-of-the-law" excuse the next time I am pulled over for
@TheJester It is you are mistaken about the law. You should look up
the statute. The handbook clearly states "if you operate a CMV, you shall be
deemed to have given your consent to alcohol testing". End of statement.
There is no provision listed for 4th amendment rights to unreasonable search and
seizure, since by signing for a CMV license and operating a CMV, you have
waived that right, under Utah law. Furthermore, there is also no provision
that says you have to be arrested for a blood draw. Whether that law would be
considered valid by the Supreme Court is another matter, since the 4th amendment
is a Federal provision that the Supreme Court has previously many times
incorporated with application to the states.
What type of training is needed to keep the officers from trampling the rights
of people and acting like a thug? Shouldn’t they have had that idea BEFORE
they joined the force? The perp and his union mouth piece would be laughable if
they didn’t have the power they do. And every cop at SLCPD that have
remained silent (now and in the past) over police brutality are culpable.
I for one am weary of hearing over and over about this unfortunate incident at
the hospital. It was handled poorly by an officer (who knows what kind of a
week he had?) I feel in general the police and sheriff department do their best
to keep us safe. I have personally known several officers who have put their
lives at risk only to see us, the public, not support them in the job they do -
way too often. That problem should have been aired once or twice - not daily.
It made me sad to see the police trying to clean up the Rio Grande area, living
daily a dangerous job, only to hand out citations (one criminal had 50 citations
according to the news) that nothing could be done about because "the jails
were full" - with actually over a hundred beds available. Let's get
our act together.
Heaven forbid someone make a "pariah" of sworn upholders of the
constitution and protectors of individuals assaulting citizens and violating
their constructional rights by allowing the public to see their lawless
actions.The police union is showing their true colors. That they are
more concerned with protecting their own no matter the cost than doing their
sworn duty to serve and protect those who they work for. This is
evidence that we have given our law enforcement too much power and privelege.
That we have created a class of citizens above the law. It's time to hold
them accountable to the law and the citizens they are sworn to serve and
Union official is making important and valuable points. If there is discipline
and the police officers go on trial, they are innocent until proven guilty no
matter how egregious the charge. Trying a case in the public taints the jury
pool and needlessly inflames the public. All the facts need to come out and
clearly changes need to be made on training.
I suppose the union is trying to ensure the officers, if tried in court, will be
tried far, far away.
Well I'll add my ill informed judgment and say what they did was dead
wrong. It's police unions/whatevers trying to justify stuff like this that
turns the public against law enforcement.
@SJ2"What was the nurse supposed to do differently? She had
paperwork to show the officer and was being told what to do by her supervisors.
If in fact there is a section 1.3 from the Utah commercial driver's license
handbook that would have given those officers what they needed to draw blood,
why couldn't they produce the paperwork to show the nurse and supervisors
(calmly)? "You may not be aware, but officers do not carry
around the whole of either local, state, or Federal laws around to show people
why they do what they do. So the whole "paperwork" thing with most
police actions that require immediate attention often comes later. I first want
you to know that I agree that the officer went way overboard, and should have
explained thing better before proceeding with an arrest. But let's suppose
that he treats her a little better, instead. What should the officer do in the
end? If he is legally entitled to the patient access but she continues to deny
him access? By my count he has been waiting (patiently) for over 10 minutes for
her to turn over access to the patient.
@Alonso QuixanoYou are mistaken in your reading of the law. The CDL
only provides for the right to gather a blood sample if the CDL holder has been
detained (read arrested) for a violation. That was not the case here as there
was no accusation of impairment by the police department. A person does not
give up their 4th amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure simply
because they have a CDL. The police would still have to provide probable
cause.The nurse read this directly to Detective Payne, who was
woefully ignorant of the law. Lt. Tracy was also ignorant of the law. Someone
in a leadership position needs to know the law. Lt. Tracy obviously did not,
and now they are both paying the price for their ignorance.
Nah dude, the officers made did it to themselves. They'll receive a fair
trial, unlike many victims of police abuse who didn't have the luxury of
access to recordings of the incident.
I cant believe anyone would be ok with the behavior of the officers, put your
wife your mother your family member in nurse Wubbles position and you would
change your tune.Too often do officers literally get away with
whatever they want because the public is afraid to speak out and do anything
about. In this case the officer was not made aware of the change in
policy regarding a blood draw. So what would an other respectable adult do?
Hmmm, you call your superiors and confirm the change in policy to verify and
validate the nurses claim - what is so hard about behaving like an adult.
Instead these officers take it personal and get all worked up, so what do these
officers do who cant control their emotions, they do what police officers do and
use their authority as they see fit and arrest a innocent individual who had
committed absolutely no crime.Police officers do far worse and get
away with it even when taking the life of an unarmed citizen.This
nurse' civil rights have been violated and not only should the officers be
disciplined they should get sued and be made accountable for their dispicable
conduct.Serve and protect, not violate and arrest our citizens.
@Max-was-right - springville, UTClearly by your statement you have
not followed any of this our you would know the paper the nurse showed the
officer was the agreed upon with SLPD and lawful documentation prohibiting her
from allowing the blood draw. Office Payne was unaware of the statute and the
change and lost control when his bullying did not work. What he should have done
was just turn around and leave. The more interesting thing in all of this was
the fact he was trying to get a blood draw from the victim of a crime and not
the criminal. What really would be the reason for the draw in the first place?
"The officers were doing what was/has always been done in this case. They
were there to do a job, a job they had done many times before. If you think for
one second that what they were doing was wrong, why haven't they been
fired?"All the officers were doing was asking to have blood
drawn from someone who was not under arrest, and was in no condition to give
consent. It is not the governments prerogative to come into a hospital without
warrant and demand that medical staff give them someone's blood.And why haven't they been fired.... are you saying the investigation is
closed and this is now history? As to the other comment.... that
just because we ask that police obey the law just like everyone else is expected
to.... that somehow that demand makes one a police hater. Good grief... for a
state filled with people who don't trust their elected officials, there
seem to be some that would grant law enforcement immunity from the very laws
they are employed to uphold. No one is saying all, or even a
majority, or even a sizable amount of officers are bad. What they are saying is
those that make mistakes... be held accountable just as we are.
Union says city 'made pariahs' of officers in U. nurse arrest.Isn't that Rich? After having viewed a number of versions of the
video including the extended version where the Lt. was attempting to browbeat
the nurse as she sat crying in handcuffs in the police car. It's more than
obvious to even a casual observer that the officers behavior and lack of
professionalism is what made them 'Pariahs'. Now we shall
see what discipline is recommended by the Police Chief.
-continued-IMPORTANTLY, A well-recognized exception to having a warrant is
if loss of evidence is in an imminent danger of being destroyed, which in this
circumstance, it could be. Laws also provide for an officer to arrest a person
if they prevent the acquisition of evidence that is in danger of being
destroyed.The supreme court ruling that is being bandied about by
some media outlets as a reference to constitutional rights of consent is
Missouri v. McNeely (2013), which states, " When officers in drunk-driving
investigations can reasonably obtain a warrant before having a blood sample
drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth
Amendment mandates that they do so." -HOWEVER, if you read the
case further, the court clearly suggests that there will be legal exceptions to
this rule “Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such
that the alcohol’s dissipation will support an exigency..." --i.e.,
the court is saying that there may be cases where it is reasonable to to obtain
blood without a warrant if there is a danger of not obtaining an accurate
record.Thus Wubbels argument was legally wrong under both federal
and state law.
@Alonso Quixano"Despite how bad it looks, the only thing that
the nurse has on her side legally is an agreement between the hospital and the
police department with regard to blood draws of people given - however this is a
"policy" agreement and is not legally binding."What was
the nurse supposed to do differently? She had paperwork to show the officer and
was being told what to do by her supervisors. If in fact there is a section 1.3
from the Utah commercial driver's license handbook that would have given
those officers what they needed to draw blood, why couldn't they produce
the paperwork to show the nurse and supervisors (calmly)? It seemed like he
just exploded and attacked her, while she was calmly trying to do everything
right. Regardless of the laws, the officer was way out of line in
the way he treated her.
All of you cop haters are missing the point. The officers were doing what
was/has always been done in this case. They were there to do a job, a job they
had done many times before. If you think for one second that what they were
doing was wrong, why haven't they been fired?Just because some
over the top nurse decided she was going to play along and got arrested,
doesn't make the cops in the wrong. If they were in the wrong they would
have been fired that next day. This is on the leaders that make the rules, not
the cops out there enforcing them on some over the top nurse!!!!
I was ready to respond with a huge rebuttal to the union president's
statements. But after reading the entire article, I actually agree with him on
some instances. He said he was not arguing over (or) even discussing the merits
of the allegations being raised against the officers. So to his points... 1) The city did handle this situation extremely poorly. Though, it was
Mrs. Wubbles and her attorney that released the footage to the media. Not the
city. 2) I also agree that police need more training. I'm not
sure what programs that were mention had been terminated. But the expense of
training is far more cost effective than subsequent lawsuits, injury, and
negative press. 3) Is the case corrupted because of publicity?
Perhaps. But this isn't the first time there has been an emotional and
public outcry over a specific case and it won't be the last. Systems are in
place to hopefully weed out elements of bias to produce justice. That is all we
can and should hope for.
You don't need training as a police officer to recognize cops making
terrible judgments and abusing their authority.
I understand why the union would stand up for the officers. That's their
job. But how can they claim the video was released prematurely when it was
first made available publicly not by the city, but by nurse Wubbels and her
attorney? And not until Aug. 31st--more than a month after the incident?There's not much to be left up to interpretation by that video.
Nurse Wubbels was explaining to the officer what her superiors were instructing
her to do when he suddenly blew his stack. The comments made by city officials
were in response to the public outcry and did no more than point out the
obvious: even had an arrest been justified, the nurse was not being combative
and there was no need to physically drag her from the building.I
don't want to see the officers fired. But I hope this video can be an
example for all police officers to see the importance of maintaining their
patience and not using their position to try and bully someone into compliance.
Meckofahess..The officer certainly took care of a bad guy or bad nurse in this
case. Anyone with that poor of judgement and emotional instability should not
be in law enforcement or if they are, should not be allowed to have any weapons.
I too was outraged at the treatment of the nurse--- until I looked into the
actual laws and supreme court cases! We can quibble whether the officers rough
actions were the best way to handle the situation, but it actually appears on
review of the law that the officer was within legal jurisdiction. Despite how
bad it looks, the only thing that the nurse has on her side legally is an
agreement between the hospital and the police department with regard to blood
draws of people given - however this is a "policy" agreement and is
not legally binding.It turns out that Section 1.3 from the Utah
commercial driver’s license handbook says that people who drive a
commercial vehicle, such as the person of interest in the blood draw, are
"deemed to have given consent to alcohol testing"- therefore by driving
the truck- he could actually be construed to have already given consent.--continued
From what I understood, there *was* no investigation until after the video was
released. If the department couldn't start an investigation in 30 days then
the Union is right to complain. Not about the publicity, but that publicity was
needed to force the department to do what they should have been doing anyway.If the Police Union wants respect for the force then it should lead the
charge to clean out the bad apples.
Unions only exist to look out for the interests of their members. All their
members, including the few rotten apples in the barrel. They do not care about
the interests of the public, the employer or the taxpayers.No
government employees should be allowed to be a member of a union.The
police union blew whatever credibility they had by coming out to defend the
indefensible.I support our 99% outstanding police officers, but
detest the occasional bad cop and any union that defends them.
So the union is saying that there is some context where the officer was
justified in his actions.... that the timing of the release which half of the
free world has seen... that this some how makes all the actions we all saw....
justifiable. Rather than say that a good officer made a mistake...
they seek to justify or diminish what we all saw? And some wonder why trust
between the public and law enforcement is now strained. This is
why we have body cams on these guys.... so we can trust them... and they good
officers make mistakes we all learn from them... and when bad officers act, they
are held accountable.It's the only way good officers will not
be painted with the same brush as bad ones are.
I LOVE Police Officers. Toughest job in the world.These officers
were an example of bad policing. They should be severely reprimanded if not
fired.Now let's revert our attention back to the 99% of GOOD
I agree with the union. Biskupski is awful. She is always playing for the
How refreshing to hear another perspective on this over-sensationalized episode
that was handled in such an amateurish way by the city. The premature release
of the video was clearly mishandled and is patently unfair to anyone serving in
the capacity of a law enforcement officer. Clearly, this whole episode could
have been handled in a less emotional and public way with appropriate counseling
or re-training given to the officers where mistakes were made. My thanks to the
Police Union for standing up for fairness and balance in this matter. Hats off
to our police officers that work to defend us from the bad guys out there!
@IAlaw:My sentiments exactly. It's the old
"blame-the-victim" routine. The police union should be apologizing to
the public for the conduct of its members.
The Police Union hints at some very good points: If investigations had
completed or some level of discipline had been taken in the month before the
video was released, there would not be so much public furor. The officers
deserve to be fired quickly because of their own actions, not because the
department was embarrassed by doing nothing until video hit the national news.
The officer deserved to be Tazed.
This accusation absolutely amazes me. Jeff Payne embarrassed himself, and the
city had absolutely nothing to do with it. It's time for Jeff Payne to be
fired and the Police Union to stop making excuses for his atrocious behavior.
This response from the police union is one of the main problems with unions -
especially in a discipline like police work. The conduct of the involved
police officers is so far removed from responsible and proper behavior that the
only shocking thing is how long it took the city to react and the unfolding of
the cover up by the city and police department. When bad apples are not
quickly disciplined and removed if needed, it reflects badly on the entire
The officers embarrassed themselves and the entire department. What kind of
training does the public need to understand this? They saw a cop bully and drag
a nurse, off her station, illegally. He detained her illegally while he was
illegally trying to obtain a blood sample, violating the patient's
constitutional rights. I think the untrained public understands the officers
actions, and those of his supervisor, all too well.
If anybody made pariahs of those officers, it was the officers themselves.