Obligation to Police

[valianteffort]

Just curious if anyone knows the legalities of sharing information with the police or situations they have ran into where police request to know the health information of a patient. We have a great relationship with our local PD. They patrol the hospital often and are pleasant, never have had an issue, not that this is something that changes the legal way to go about the situation.

We had a patient brought in that had full rigor, cold skin, blown pupils. EMS arrived to scene due to the 911 call, and there was very clear evidence this patient had passed hours/days? ago. The patients family insisted that she was just speaking to us 10 minutes ago. Given this, EMS started compressions and were instructed by PD to transport the patient to the hospital given this. The patient's jaw was so clenched, there was no way to even fit a supraglottic airway, neverless an ET tube or a glidescope. Extremities were also rigid.

Police then ask me about my 'on the record' opinion on the status of the body after TOD was called. Mind you, they record everything on their body cams. They asked my name/bday and noted this is an 'official statement' on this patient about what I felt about the status of the body. I have not been summoned to court yet for this case. Are police allowed to acquire health information when investigating under law or do I have to wait until they have a summons from a judge to acquire this information from me? Wondering if anyone has had similar situations and what you think is legally allowed to be said.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RuralEDDoc]

I really don’t know so this isn’t advice, just off the cuff thoughts. Probably no harm in saying “dead and probably dead for hours because the patient appeared to be in rigor mortis”. They are investigating a crime and that information could help in real time. If my spider sense was up that this seemed really weird, I’d likely let them know that I’m not prepared to make a statement and will contact them when my shift is over, conferring with Risk in the meantime.

***Corrected to say dead for hours, not days

 

[skougess]

You can only get yourself in trouble by talking to police, especially as a physician on duty. I don’t share information or medical opinion with them voluntarily.

Police are NOT the law. They are (frequently undereducated) hired henchman for judges and lawyers who are actually the law. Never forget that.

 

[clibby]

“It is my opinion that the patient has died and I suspect that the patient died more than one hour ago given rigor mortis has set. Therefore, further resuscitation in the emergency department is not warranted. I defer to my pathology colleagues to determine time and cause of death.” If there are any objective physical exam findings I plan on putting in my note, I will give them that as well, but I try not to speculate as to the cause of the injuries or wounds. That is the pathologist’s, coroner’s, and law-enforcement’s job. If they want anything other than objective facts, not only do I need to be paid as an expert witness, but I better have the expertise to back up my claims.

There is no reason to give any more information than this on the record as you are not a pathologist unless you have other information that could be relevant. I see no reason to hold anything back from my law-enforcement colleagues about a patient who has died, but I do not want to put myself in a compromising position by speculating when I don’t have any solid evidence and I am not a pathologist. The last thing I need is to be brought into a deposition or court and miss work, or a day off because of some thing I said “on the record“.

For patients who are not dead, I feel comfortable giving them estimates of when my work up will be done and any next steps they may need, but I do not need to disclose the private health information of the patient either without a subpoena.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

I’d refer them to the coroner since that’s what they’re for.

 

[RuralEDDoc]

I’d refer them to the coroner since that’s what they’re for.

I can understand that approach but it seems very conservative. Why not give a reasonable opinion to the police that doesn’t point fingers? Friendly question here, would appreciate your perspective.

 

[southerndoc]

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdf

505-When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose information to law enforcement

www.hhs.gov

Straight from the source.

Mag Mutual also has a good summary: Law Enforcement Exception to HIPAA

If in doubt, you could always contact your hospital risk management office first. If at night, you could call the administrator on call to ask them.

 

[valianteffort]

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdf

505-When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose information to law enforcement

www.hhs.gov

Straight from the source.

Mag Mutual also has a good summary: Law Enforcement Exception to HIPAA

If in doubt, you could always contact your hospital risk management office first. If at night, you could call the administrator on call to ask them.

Thank you. It appears in the scenario I mentioned, providing information would fall under:

• To answer a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime 

And would therefore be legal to speak to police about the case

 

[JacobMcCandles]

I can understand that approach but it seems very conservative. Why not give a reasonable opinion to the police that doesn’t point fingers? Friendly question here, would appreciate your perspective.

A reasonable opinion is that they'd been dead for a bit. My guess is that they'll want more information than I can accurately provide.

 

[gruemd]

You can only get yourself in trouble by talking to police, especially as a physician on duty. I don’t share information or medical opinion with them voluntarily.

Police are NOT the law. They are (frequently undereducated) hired henchman for judges and lawyers who are actually the law. Never forget that.

Quoted and bolded for emphasis.

The stylist who cut my hair yesterday had more job training than local PD, and stricter licensing requirements. Police are not your friends. They care only about police interests, and I don't provide them any information that I do not have to.

They also have special legal carve outs. A patient accidentally dies that you were legally obligated to see in the ED and you can be held personally liable, even if you did nothing wrong, and can wreck your livelihood and/or make it harder to get a job in the future. Many people have been unjustly killed or seriously injured by police and the vast majority of those officers have successfully hidden behind the shield of qualified immunity without paying a dime personally, often with paid vacation to boot.

Similarly, nobody would care if police are told information they shouldn't know by a healthcare worker, but patient families, hospitals, and licensing boards will certainly care if PHI is shared when it shouldn't be. People often make the case that doctors and police are on the same "side" but you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking to them. I'm cordial but firm about things like police leaving the room while I talk with or examine any patient under their custody or even being investigated by them.

 

[southerndoc]

If the patient is deceased or unconscious and suspected to be a victim of a crime (even remotely), then you're not going to get in trouble by talking to police. They have an investigation going on that is pertinent to the patient as long as the patient couldn't potentially be charged (i.e., if you give information out that the patient injured his hand while fighting with someone else, then the patient may be charged and you can't give information without his or her consent).

Now when you're the target of an investigation, then that's a different story. You shouldn't talk to police without an attorney present.

 

[dozitgetchahi]

Quoted and bolded for emphasis.

The stylist who cut my hair yesterday had more job training than local PD, and stricter licensing requirements. Police are not your friends. They care only about police interests, and I don't provide them any information that I do not have to.

They also have special legal carve outs. A patient accidentally dies that you were legally obligated to see in the ED and you can be held personally liable, even if you did nothing wrong, and can wreck your livelihood and/or make it harder to get a job in the future. Many people have been unjustly killed or seriously injured by police and the vast majority of those officers have successfully hidden behind the shield of qualified immunity without paying a dime personally, often with paid vacation to boot.

Similarly, nobody would care if police are told information they shouldn't know by a healthcare worker, but patient families, hospitals, and licensing boards will certainly care if PHI is shared when it shouldn't be. People often make the case that doctors and police are on the same "side" but you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking to them. I'm cordial but firm about things like police leaving the room while I talk with or examine any patient under their custody or even being investigated by them.

Agree.

My opinion is that you can’t go wrong by referring cops to your institution’s legal counsel. If it’s necessary for the cops to talk to you, they can work with you to lay out what to say etc.

I think you’re absolutely correct in saying that there are a million bad things that can happen by talking to cops…even if you’re completely innocent and someone who is an upstanding honest citizen. Don’t talk to cops unless you absolutely have to (and unless legal counsel is involved).

 

[JacobMcCandles]

I’m not on the anti-cop sentiment this is trending towards. They’re people who are mostly just trying to do their job just like people in every industry. I just don’t think I’m in a position to be giving official information in this particular situation.

 

[skougess]

I’m not on the anti-cop sentiment this is trending towards. They’re people who are mostly just trying to do their job just like people in every industry. I just don’t think I’m in a position to be giving official information in this particular situation.

I’m not anti cop. It’s objectively true that speaking to police can ONLY get you in trouble.

Most cops are good upstanding citizens trying to do a good job. Some are not. The problem is cops essentially make up citations at will (until a judge says it’s real, a citation is just a date with a judge, not anything real) that can cause a lot of grief. They can also try to trick you into causing those made up citations to stick.

 

[gruemd]

I don't think anyone is really being anti-police here, it's just that there is literally nothing to be gained by talking to them. It's true I am not generally pro-police, but I don't treat individual police as a physician or civilian with disdain (note that I didn't so much as refer to them as "cops"), but I think it's fair to call a spade a spade and say that there is a whole lot that is problematic with policing in America, some of which I iterated above. As it relates to being a physician/the OP's situation, I bet he's legally on alright ground in this case, but in the future why risk it when it benefits you nothing and can potentially cost you everything?

It sounds unrelated but is a close parallel to physician liability, even if slightly unrelated to the OP: the police can basically do nearly anything with impunity and as long as they even THINK they are doing the right thing (or so much as say so after the fact), the justice system almost always sides with them. As mentioned above, if you do everything right you can still lose your livelihood, but almost any lawsuit against the PD will settle, and even if it goes to trial, the money awarded is from the city, meaning lawsuits for police actions result in me paying for their mistakes via taxes. I'm all for removal of qualified immunity, personal liability, police malpractice(?) insurance, or the inverse, of major tort reform that gives physicians the same near-blanket immunity, though I don't think that will ever happen. Heck, supreme court cases show that police don't even have an obligation to "protect and serve" the people, only an obligation to the state/municipality that employs them. Individual officers may be good people (or in some cases, they absolutely aren't), but it is hard to argue against there being a lot that is wrong in modern law enforcement organization and practices.

 

[throway134]

There is nothing in this situation that indicates you will help the investigation with real time information. If there were, I would have an admin on the phone because they’re getting dragged into it sooner or later and it’s easier for everyone if they give their preference in real time.

I would refer them to the medical record for my official opinion on everything I feel comfortable giving an opinion on. My note would indicate the presence of rigor/lividity or other signs they were long dead. They can request it through medical records like everyone else.

Hipaa continues to apply after death. There is a carve out as above, but there’s nothing time sensitive about this info.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

I’m not anti cop. It’s objectively true that speaking to police can ONLY get you in trouble.

If you’re the subject of their investigation then yes, your best bet isn’t to talk with them and to talk with your attorney because most people confess or give up information that will lead to a charge. There’s obviously a spectrum here between a seat belt ticket and murder.

My curious question is how do you file a police report or what’s your plan if your motto is never talk to police? Or does this only apply to certain situations?

 

[BoardingDoc]

Obligatory post given the topic.



If y'all haven't seen this, it's worth watching. Fantastic lecture on why not to talk to the police given by both a defense attorney and a police officer.

 

[endo]

Cops need some form of immunity otherwise why would they ever risk getting involved in any unstable situation? It’s a job most won’t / can’t do — if you want them to slow roll every high priority call then go ahead and remove qualified immunity. If you want them to be sued constantly- well they won’t do their job and the city will pay the settlements anyways because cops don’t have deep pockets.

 

[doggydog]

This thread has devolved into stupidity impressively fast.

I think the question was already answered. Don’t think this forum needs a philosophical discussion on what being pro or anti cop means.

 

[gruemd]

I forgot, this subforum exists only for lamenting the state of emergency medicine, back to posting about CMGs everyone

 

[Apollyon]

I forgot, this subforum exists only for lamenting the state of emergency medicine, back to posting about CMGs everyone

Well, it's not for MFing the police, that's for sure!

 

[comp1]

So the real answer lies with your privacy office. You can generally disclose the overall status of a patient, ie critical, guarded, stable, etc unless the patient has specifically requested that this information not be disclosed. I'm not sure if that really translates to dead vs very dead. I will say, there's a lot to be gained from talking to and being particularly friendly to police if they are regulars in your department or hospital. If you've been a jerk to them or their friends in the past or just not super helpful, they can certainly slow walk to assaults in progress. If you're going to be subpoenaed in this case, you're probably going to be no matter what you say to police. In this case, I would be extremely polite to police, but also tell them that I can't really say how long the person was dead as that's not my area of expertise. This is also what you should say when you're on the stand unless you've done some sort of weird pathology fellowship and are being paid as an expert witness.

 

[Mount Asclepius]

This is at heart a legal question.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion above. Agree the conversation has trended anti-police, but see both sides as I’m sure many of us do.

We certainly all have our opinions of police. This probably reflects more so to our bias (even if a partially valid bias) and doesn’t really answer the question.

Luckily it isn’t yourself at the crosshairs of this legal question, unlike in other medical-legal scenarios.

My understanding is that you are under no obligation to immediately provide the police with any information as long as you aren’t intentionally withholding evidence to a crime.

HIPAA also doesn’t apply as expertly posted by southerndoc above.

At the same time, there isn’t a great reason to be hostile and confrontational when it could also possibly mean withholding potentially time-sensitive, pertinent information.

You aren’t the one in legal jeopardy. I suspect that your medical record is more likely to be subpoenaed than any off-the-cuff statement you give to police.

Anecdotally, I’m subpoenaed 1-2 times per year as a fact witness. Most of these plea and I don’t testify. I have yet to have to testify for comments that I’ve made to police ‘in the moment’ in the ED.

There is a lot to overthink in EM, I wouldn’t overthink this. Just give a blah, professional, non-confrontational, not overly informative statement and move on.

 

[Rendar5]

I was once questioned by police about a child abuse case after the fact. Child had died. A-hole who abused him was under arrest. I saw him 2 weeks prior for an unrelated injury that had no suspicion for abuse at the time. I was called to testify in that case and the mofo ended up being found guilty before I was even called to testify.

A year later, I realized in retrospect that they were also questioning me to see if I should have been arrested for not reporting the case. (They asked me if I knew that reporting was mandatory. I told them of course and if I had even suspected anything I would have called DCF personally). Thankfully I had also documented well enough that there was no issue, but it actually was a close call.

I don’t provide the police with any information if I can help it regarding investigations. Otherwise I have a cordial relationship with officers I call police if patients request it and call them for gunshot wounds as is required by the law.

 

[BoardingDoc]

Anecdotally, I’m subpoenaed 1-2 times per year as a fact witness.

For what? In general I mean. I don't need specifics, though feel free to provide them. I've been working as an attending in the ED for 7 yrs now and I've never been called on to be a fact witness once.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

And then there was this case...

 

[skougess]

And then there was this case...

Yep. Again this represents the very extreme of knucklehead cops. I am NOT anticop. But you can see what an impossible situation they put this nurse in, simply because she was there.

Imagine if she buckled under the pressure and complied (very reasonable human response). She could have been sued by the patient and lost her license. Instead she just got assaulted. Just say no to talking to police.

 

[Siggy]

And then there was this case...

I was going to post the Alex Wubbels case. You know, the case where the police arrested a nurse for not violating a patient's constitutional rights over unreasonable search and seizure, only for him to be fired and almost immediately rehired at another sheriffs office?

Did he pay a part of the $500k settlement? LULz, no... The city and the university that owned the hospital paid that.

Meanwhile, in Florida we have police officers attempting to kill suspects because of an acorn falling or arresting people for honking at police officers... blocking the entrance to a hospital because the cops wanted to chit chat. That driver was trying to take his pregnant wife to the ED.

How about the police become responsible for doing their job correctly instead of lashing out at everyone else for their poor training and judgement?

 

[Mount Asclepius]

For what? In general I mean. I don't need specifics, though feel free to provide them. I've been working as an attending in the ED for 7 yrs now and I've never been called on to be a fact witness once.

It’s very rare in our area that these actually go to trial so I don’t have a ton of personal experience. Usually the cases plea just before trial, don’t end up in court, and the subpoena is called off. The most annoying part is having to be prepared to show up especially if working a block of nights.

The cases are almost always injury cases such as MVC, DUI or physical assault. I think it’s primarily just to introduce the medical record into the legal record. I’d speculate that perhaps there is a component of emphasizing the human suffering and victimization to the jury by discussing the medical care provided for the injury.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Just curious if anyone knows the legalities of sharing information with the police or situations they have ran into where police request to know the health information of a patient. We have a great relationship with our local PD. They patrol the hospital often and are pleasant, never have had an issue, not that this is something that changes the legal way to go about the situation.

We had a patient brought in that had full rigor, cold skin, blown pupils. EMS arrived to scene due to the 911 call, and there was very clear evidence this patient had passed hours/days? ago. The patients family insisted that she was just speaking to us 10 minutes ago. Given this, EMS started compressions and were instructed by PD to transport the patient to the hospital given this. The patient's jaw was so clenched, there was no way to even fit a supraglottic airway, neverless an ET tube or a glidescope. Extremities were also rigid.

Police then ask me about my 'on the record' opinion on the status of the body after TOD was called. Mind you, they record everything on their body cams. They asked my name/bday and noted this is an 'official statement' on this patient about what I felt about the status of the body. I have not been summoned to court yet for this case. Are police allowed to acquire health information when investigating under law or do I have to wait until they have a summons from a judge to acquire this information from me? Wondering if anyone has had similar situations and what you think is legally allowed to be said.

Offer no opinion. Ever.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

I was going to post the Alex Wubbels case. You know, the case where the police arrested a nurse for not violating a patient's constitutional rights over unreasonable search and seizure, only for him to be fired and almost immediately rehired at another sheriffs office?

Did he pay a part of the $500k settlement? LULz, no... The city and the university that owned the hospital paid that.

Meanwhile, in Florida we have police officers attempting to kill suspects because of an acorn falling or arresting people for honking at police officers... blocking the entrance to a hospital because the cops wanted to chit chat. That driver was trying to take his pregnant wife to the ED.

How about the police become responsible for doing their job correctly instead of lashing out at everyone else for their poor training and judgement?

I mean, there are lots of REALLY bad ED docs out there doing a terrible job, too. You've pointed out several exceptions that we could also point out in any job. It's always a shame when there's a bad outcome. That's true in the ED and it's true in the police world. Do you ever watch On Patrol: Live or any similar shows? It's a wonder that more people don't get shot, honestly. I couldn't do that job. Weirdly enough, I bet that a lot of these bad outcomes wouldn't happen if those getting pulled over, arrested, etc. just complied (that doesn't mean talking to the police) and let things get sorted out.

 

[Siggy]

I mean, there are lots of REALLY bad ED docs out there doing a terrible job, too. You've pointed out several exceptions that we could also point out in any job. It's always a shame when there's a bad outcome. That's true in the ED and it's true in the police world. Do you ever watch On Patrol: Live or any similar shows? It's a wonder that more people don't get shot, honestly. I couldn't do that job. Weirdly enough, I bet that a lot of these bad outcomes wouldn't happen if those getting pulled over, arrested, etc. just complied (that doesn't mean talking to the police) and let things get sorted out.

Let me know when physicians get qualified immunity, then I’d care to compare.


Remind me… what could the Acorn Victim have done to avoid being shot at?

What could Wubel have done not to have been frog marched out of her ED?

 

[skougess]

I mean, there are lots of REALLY bad ED docs out there doing a terrible job, too. You've pointed out several exceptions that we could also point out in any job. It's always a shame when there's a bad outcome. That's true in the ED and it's true in the police world. Do you ever watch On Patrol: Live or any similar shows? It's a wonder that more people don't get shot, honestly. I couldn't do that job. Weirdly enough, I bet that a lot of these bad outcomes wouldn't happen if those getting pulled over, arrested, etc. just complied (that doesn't mean talking to the police) and let things get sorted out.

I knew someone was going to equate bad police outcomes with bad ER outcomes. The difference is huge. Interacting with an ER doc has a possibility to actually help you. Talking with police can ONLY HURT YOU. Neutral at best.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

We deal with the police more than any other physician group.

Also while we are on the topic what are your places policies on rape exams? I worked in one shop where I did them myself I received subpoenas and always just read from the chart the place I work now we send people to a facility. I will never work in a place that requires physican's to do rape exams.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

Let me know when physicians get qualified immunity, then I’d care to compare.


Remind me… what could the Acorn Victim have done to avoid being shot at?

What could Wubel have done not to have been frog marched out of her ED?

Same for patients and malpractice and negligence.

I knew someone was going to equate bad police outcomes with bad ER outcomes. The difference is huge. Interacting with an ER doc has a possibility to actually help you. Talking with police can ONLY HURT YOU. Neutral at best.

The police have never helped anyone? That's a wobbly branch you're out there on.

Again, the majority are good cops and there's a few bad apples. It's like that in every single job and industry. As for the don't talk to police mantra, it's a good idea (as the CRIMINAL DEFENSE attorney says) for some situations. In other situations, it's good to interact with them.

 

[TrailRun]

I must have missed the day in residency where we were taught how to determine how long someone has been dead for. I definitely feel qualified to determine if someone is dead or not (and can back it up with pulselessness, cardiac ultrasound, etc). I'm sure we could all guess that someone had been dead longer than the 10 minutes that family claimed, but I wouldn't want to state that opinion on the record knowing full well I don't have the credentials to back it up.

I think the police are generally helpful. But I did make the mistake once, when they asked if an elderly demented person they brought in for driving erratically showed any signs of being "under the influence." I stated no, as he did not, thinking that would help him avoid being charged. But it just changed what they charged him with. And in retrospect it wasn't my job to try to help him legally

 

[skougess]

The police have never helped anyone? That's a wobbly branch you're out there on.

Cmon you’re arguing in bad faith. We are talking about police approaching you and asking you questions. Tell me about how anything good can come from that.

I keep feeling the need to defend myself because the knee-jerk is always “so you hate police then??”. I think police are good for society and I support their presence. This original thread was about giving information or speaking with police. The answer to that is an unequivocal and always and forever “NO!”.

 

[gro2001]

And then there was this case...

Almost the exact same thing happened at an ER I worked at. Except in our case it was the charge nurse who was arrested. Handcuffed and everything.

 

[gro2001]

Just curious if anyone knows the legalities of sharing information with the police or situations they have ran into where police request to know the health information of a patient. We have a great relationship with our local PD. They patrol the hospital often and are pleasant, never have had an issue, not that this is something that changes the legal way to go about the situation.

We had a patient brought in that had full rigor, cold skin, blown pupils. EMS arrived to scene due to the 911 call, and there was very clear evidence this patient had passed hours/days? ago. The patients family insisted that she was just speaking to us 10 minutes ago. Given this, EMS started compressions and were instructed by PD to transport the patient to the hospital given this. The patient's jaw was so clenched, there was no way to even fit a supraglottic airway, neverless an ET tube or a glidescope. Extremities were also rigid.

Police then ask me about my 'on the record' opinion on the status of the body after TOD was called. Mind you, they record everything on their body cams. They asked my name/bday and noted this is an 'official statement' on this patient about what I felt about the status of the body. I have not been summoned to court yet for this case. Are police allowed to acquire health information when investigating under law or do I have to wait until they have a summons from a judge to acquire this information from me? Wondering if anyone has had similar situations and what you think is legally allowed to be said.

Do you have any training in forensic medicine? I do not, and so would not be comfortable making any speculation on how long somebody has been dead. Particularly in any official capacity. And any conversation with a police officer is always in an official capacity, regardless if they are kind enough to remind you that it is "on the record". It is always on the record, regardless if they say it's not, cameras are off, they are or are not writing things down, or you are having this conversation over a beer at a local pub. Their recollection (flawed as it may be) is enough of a record to hold up in court.

 

[comp1]

I understand this is an art, but everybody here should be fairly comfortable in terms of answering questions without answering questions. As in, not actually disclosing any information not readily apparent and available. For example, "yes, he arrived deceased. No, I'm very sorry officer, I don't know long he had been dead. I don't have any experience with that. How else could I help you?" A big part of that art is not announcing to police ahead of time what you won't be sharing with them or won't be doing, but instead demonstrating nominal effort while always being exceedingly polite.

I don't quite get the CNN clip above. Are the police demanding the nurse draw blood for them? Or are they asking her to get out of the way so they can draw blood? It seems relevant, but I see conflicting reports on that even in the Wikipedia article on the event. Either way, I think I would have told the police officers what hospital policies are based on the hospital's (not my) interpretation of the law, but also made it very clear that it wasn't my role to stop them from doing their job as they saw fit. Ultimately what happens with a blood sample is a judge's role, right? I can't imagine a licensing board (or malpractice jury) to expect a nurse or doctor to physically or even verbally prevent a police officer from doing anything. If they were demanding that she draw blood for them that's a bit different, but in that case I think you could probably explain that you aren't able to draw a separate sample for them, but then ALSO explain that all blood samples were saved for several days at the lab and it's very likely they would be able to get any special tests they wanted run on that blood in the future. None of this excuses the police officer's behavior. It was grossly inappropriate, he was rightfully fired and the nurse received a relatively large settlement from Salt Lake City. I'm just trying to see how the situation could have been de-escalated since emotions were so high (the victim was an off duty police officer).

 

[Siggy]

I don't quite get the CNN clip above. Are the police demanding the nurse draw blood for them? Or are they asking her to get out of the way so they can draw blood?

They are demanding that she draws the blood on the victim of a car accident where there's no suspicion that the patient was intoxicated. They are doing so without a warrant.

...and when the nurse refused to draw blood on a patient to allow for police seizure, absent consent or a warrant, she was handcuffed and frog marched out of the hospital.

This is like the times when the police officers arrest fire fighters for not moving the fire truck used to create a safe working place on the scene of an MVA on the freeway.



...and yea, it's 10 years ago, which just goes to show you that police officers haven't learned a thing and are triggered when anyone tells them "no," even to a patently unlawful order. They want to go home at the end of their shift... even if it means trading your life for it.

 

[JacobMcCandles]

Cmon you’re arguing in bad faith. We are talking about police approaching you and asking you questions. Tell me about how anything good can come from that.

I keep feeling the need to defend myself because the knee-jerk is always “so you hate police then??”. I think police are good for society and I support their presence. This original thread was about giving information or speaking with police. The answer to that is an unequivocal and always and forever “NO!”.

“Talking to police can only hurt you.” Those are your words, not mine. As I’ve said, it depends on the situations and blanket statement are generally wrong.

 

[comp1]

Not talking to police can also definitely hurt you. Everything in moderation.

 

[Rendar5]

I understand this is an art, but everybody here should be fairly comfortable in terms of answering questions without answering questions. As in, not actually disclosing any information not readily apparent and available. For example, "yes, he arrived deceased. No, I'm very sorry officer, I don't know long he had been dead. I don't have any experience with that. How else could I help you?" A big part of that art is not announcing to police ahead of time what you won't be sharing with them or won't be doing, but instead demonstrating nominal effort while always being exceedingly polite.

I don't quite get the CNN clip above. Are the police demanding the nurse draw blood for them? Or are they asking her to get out of the way so they can draw blood? It seems relevant, but I see conflicting reports on that even in the Wikipedia article on the event. Either way, I think I would have told the police officers what hospital policies are based on the hospital's (not my) interpretation of the law, but also made it very clear that it wasn't my role to stop them from doing their job as they saw fit. Ultimately what happens with a blood sample is a judge's role, right? I can't imagine a licensing board (or malpractice jury) to expect a nurse or doctor to physically or even verbally prevent a police officer from doing anything. If they were demanding that she draw blood for them that's a bit different, but in that case I think you could probably explain that you aren't able to draw a separate sample for them, but then ALSO explain that all blood samples were saved for several days at the lab and it's very likely they would be able to get any special tests they wanted run on that blood in the future. None of this excuses the police officer's behavior. It was grossly inappropriate, he was rightfully fired and the nurse received a relatively large settlement from Salt Lake City. I'm just trying to see how the situation could have been de-escalated since emotions were so high (the victim was an off duty police officer).

Not only were they demanding she draw the blood for them on a very ill patient for them without a warrant, she was on speaker phone in front of the officer with the hospital lawyer who was explaining to the officer that she was not allowed to draw it without said warrant. Per actual hospital guidelines in accordance with pre written agreements between hospital and law enforcement.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

There is a county service or something like that. A nurse comes in, takes photos, does any testing, etc. We don't even bill for our screening evaluation.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

They are demanding that she draws the blood on the victim of a car accident where there's no suspicion that the patient was intoxicated. They are doing so without a warrant.

...and when the nurse refused to draw blood on a patient to allow for police seizure, absent consent or a warrant, she was handcuffed and frog marched out of the hospital.

This is like the times when the police officers arrest fire fighters for not moving the fire truck used to create a safe working place on the scene of an MVA on the freeway.



...and yea, it's 10 years ago, which just goes to show you that police officers haven't learned a thing and are triggered when anyone tells them "no," even to a patently unlawful order. They want to go home at the end of their shift... even if it means trading your life for it.

Even with a warrant if the patient doesn't consent we do nothing. We do not restrain a patient against their will to carry out court orders. Period.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

Even with a warrant if the patient doesn't consent we do nothing. We do not restrain a patient against their will to carry out court orders. Period.

We are not wards of the court. Also there are limits to a court order

 

[comp1]

That's why I think it's so important to figure out if they were demanding that the nurse draw the blood or were just saying that they planned to draw the blood. There certainly are a lot of police who are trained to draw blood. And yes, for rape exams counties often send someone. It just seems so different to get out of the way of the police breaking the law (or more concretely a policy understanding based on law) versus actively being a part of it in this particular case. Obviously a case where actual physical harm is likely is different. I'm quite certain the hospital already drew blood from this patient. Any harm from the blood draw could be fully mitigated by the court later on, but nobody should be able to order you to do something like draw blood under penalty of law. I could see an argument for obstruction if you tried to stop the police, but I'm not sure how anyone can argue that a lack of engagement is obstruction.

 

[ShockIndex]

6 years of law enforcement experience (3 local and 3 federal) before making the career change to keeping people alive long after their expiration date. Thus, I probably have a bit of a different take than many on this forum.

The rule “never talk to the police” and “talking to the police can never help you” sounds like great advice for people who don’t have the common sense to distinguish when the interaction is because they are a suspect, witness, or victim of crime.

In other words, I’m curious to know if the law enforcement mutes follow their own advice when the cops show up because that patient’s family member kicked THEIR ass for not refilling the oxy, or someone put a gun in THEIR face in the parking deck and demanded the car keys. Or, do you follow your own advice, refuse to talk to the cops, and just go home and put an ice pack on your face?

Keep in mind that many crimes are solved by witnesses willing to come forward and, you know, talk to the police.