Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

Shitcanning these guys is a bit harsh when the negligence of the department policy writers/administrators failed them so thoroughly by not bringing the department's policy's and training up to date with recent legal developments.

If I can be fired, arrested, charged, and convicted for a crime despite not knowing the law, I see no reason why a police officer should not be subject to such either. The officers snapped when presented with a printed document explaining the policy and why they were in the wrong, they didn't want to be corrected, they weren't going to listen to anyone.

The officer in question also threatens to, as part of his paramedic gig, only bring in transients (usually problem patients) and take the others elsewhere, which has all sorts of implications for patient care nevermind the vindictive abuse of that position. That alone should be a serious enough violation of public trust to warrant being fired from a position of authority and responsibility.

You sure can be convicted of a crime you don't know was a crime. You accidentally cheat on your taxes you don't go to jail. They give you a fine and have you pay the right amount. How about something more relevant? Your supervisor told you to do something you wern't sure about but you just did it - it ends up being wrong - you think the worker should be fired in this case? Unless someone got hurt or some kind of irreparable harm was done - I see no point - it can easily be corrected by fixing the problem (which is the not knowing).

We have armed agents of the state in positions of responsibility and authority abusing their power after having been made aware what they are doing is wrong, on camera acknowleding several points in fact (such as the fact that they don't have a warrant nor probable cause to get a warrant...), threatening punitive action not only as police officers but as paramedics as well, refusing to listen to why they are wrong, and others standing by doing nothing allowing this all to happen, while physical force is brought to bear against an innocent person.

Nope, sorry, there were way too many things wrong here. They weren't willing to listen to why they were wrong, they engaged in threats through multiple different avenues and roles, and used physical force.

That's not "I didn't know", that's "I'm gonna do whatever I want because I think I can get away with it". It's rank abuse of authority driven by ego and others stood by and allowed it to happen without intervention. Even if it was just "I didn't know", armed agents of the state should be held to a higher standard. If I attempted to arrest, detain, or restrain someone for doing something I think is illegal and I turn out to be wrong, you can absolutely bet I'm going to be arrested and charged.

Nope, dump the lot of them. There's a reason "I was just following orders" isn't generally accepted as a defense...

This is one of the biggest problems with policing today. Police aren't required to know the law (but that's no defense for you or I...), and people are entirely willing to let them off the hook when they end up being wrong, allowing abuses of power to happen and as a result we end up with the reality that the public has very little reason to trust the police or welcome their presence. Police can't be allowed to just say "sorry, we didn't know" as a get-out-of-jail-free excuse, especially when they're the ones responsible for policing themselves.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.

Aside from the fact that there was an illegal seizure...

There was no illegal seizure though...The blood was not drawn correct?

there was an illegal seizure of the Nurse...

Or if it was - why are we focused on the nurse and not the victim?

Because the Nurse was a victim in this situation...

Why is it not the victim speaking out about his civil rights being violated?

who knows, any number of reasons (is he even conscious yet? I dont recall). He may yet. Thats irrelevant however.

It's because they weren't.

Because hospital staff intervened to prevent it and in turn had their rights violated...

Also, its not for lack of trying, the Police in this case certainly attempted to.

Talk about moving goalposts...

Which is why I'm being more lenient to the cop (unless the sample was drawn illegally in which case we are following the wrong story).

I also think the nurse was being foolish - right or not - you have no right to interfere with a police officer - NONE - doing so subjects you to arrest.

Ah, so here we are. Cops can do anything they want, subject to no restraint. If theyre doing something bad, stand aside or simply let it happen, sit and watch or endure. Let the police investigate themselves later of there's an issue...that totally works...

If you cannot see how insanely, and absurdly, open to abuse that line of thinking is, I dont know what to say, nobody is going to change your mind.

For a prime example, look at the Van Dyke-Laquan shooting in Chicago, it took a court order to get the video released, and only then was action taken against the officer in question, and it took another two years to bring charges against officers for mucking about with the evidence.

We also - as is typical with phone videos

police body cam...

don't have the whole event on camera. There is no telling what happend leading up to this recording.

we have *twenty minutes* of video, and nothing from either side to indicate any sort of escalation or particularly hostile intent beforehand.

I'm not righting off any possibilities. I know for a fact that a cop knowing hes being video taped wouldn't do what he did without something else going on.

No, you dont know that for a fact, you werent there and we have gobs of evidence to the contrary, cops have been videotaped or done things in massive view of the public, with their full knowledge, doing terrible things before. Some of them have lost jobs or gotten prison time becausr of it. Theyre human. People do dumb things on camera all the time, particularly when they have been given authority and believe they can rely on the system to back them up.

Officer Payne also discussed abusing his paramedic gig to dump difficult to manage and potentially dangerous transients at the hospital and take other patients elsewhere, something which endangers patients (as he may not be taking them to the most appropriate location) and is fundamentally using that position in a retaliatory and completely inappropriate manner...

Tell me - does nothing about this situation strike you as odd? Cops know they can't order people to do things unless you are under arrest - everyone knows that.

Doesnt mean they dont sometimes do so anyway. Theres thousands of lawsuits and payouts in testament to such.

So what was this cops plan to obtain the sample anyways? Why does Salt Lake City have a blood collection department that sends officers to hospitals to collect samples they legally can't obtain?

So they can take blood from people when they have probable cause and a warrant or consent...?

Hang on was she actually arrested? or just detained.

(cant watch it at work)

 Desubot wrote:
Hang on was she actually arrested? or just detained.

(cant watch it at work)

Arrested but released later because it was an illegal arrest.

The officer is shouting "You're under arrest! You're under arrest!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Hang on was she actually arrested? or just detained.

(cant watch it at work)

Arrested but released later because it was an illegal arrest.

The officer is shouting "You're under arrest! You're under arrest!"

Ah thanks.

 Desubot wrote:
Hang on was she actually arrested? or just detained.

(cant watch it at work)

arrested.also the Bill of Rights doesn't just cover search and siezure, whoever said that needs to refresh their recollection before posting again. *

*Don't forget the 33rd Amendment- the right to disco.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
'Tis why now, you'll only have facilities managment/security deal with the police, rather than the actual clinicians.

best way forward.

I posted this earlier as "a good step forward" and have since slept on it. On reflection Whembly and I are sort of making a meaningless point: yeah, I guess it's OK that the hospital changed it's policies, but ultimately... they were already right to begin with. Nurse Wuebbels already complied with the law and policy, so nothing the hospital changes should be relevant.

My point was that these nurses shouldn't be the gatekeeper here... it's too busy of a job to place that responsibility.

I double-checked my large institution's policy here in missouri. The police is supposed to get authority from either the hospital security detail and/or from nurse supervisor (who rarely sees patients).... once that is kosher, then the police can engage with the nursing staff onsite.

 curran12 wrote:
Out of curiosity, nels, how exactly do you "retrain" for someone who on camera made multiple threats and an illegal arrest? What is the training for that and why in the flying feth is it not training for when you become a cop?

You can't. Payne is literally too slowed to know how to do his job. Look at the video, and on top of his behavior there, then remember how the moron got his stupid ass fired from his other job.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
"Attempted [illegal seizure]? What is that, really? Can you win a Nobel prize in Attempted Chemistry?"

Personally I feel safe and secure in the knowledge that if I try to murder someone and fail, there was no crime

This is more akin to trying to steal someones mail and failing.

Mail fraud laws are purposefully written to cover attempts to defraud.

Your proposal that we should ignore blatant abuse of power simply because the person abusing their authority failed to achieve their main goal is asinine. Furthermore, it's not even relevant because not only did police attempt to do something outside their powers they did something else (false arrest) when they ran into a problem at the door. This scenario shows attempts to circumvent civil liberty at multiple levels of police command (EDIT: followed by an abdication of accountability that can only be wilful on the part of the department). I was just following order's isn't an excuse. Neither is ignorance of the law. These have never been accepted defenses and both are more sympathetic than you're "sure I tried to violate the civil liberties of one citizen and then violated the liberties of another when she stopped me but come on, no one was hurt" is a defense so out of touch it borders on brain dead.

Xenomancers wrote:There was no illegal seizure though...The blood was not drawn correct? Or if it was - why are we focused on the nurse and not the victim? Why is it not the victim speaking out about his civil rights being violated? It's because they weren't.

It wasn't, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the illegal seizure(Kidnapping) of the nurse. Furthermore, the victim didn't speak out because he is still in a fething coma. However, the police department he works for spoke out and thanked the nurse for protecting his rights. As did his wife.

Xenomancers wrote:But these people have no authority over the police. They don't have the authority to stop the police ether.

Actually, as a patient advocate they have supreme authority in this situation as they are acting in the interests of the patient, who cannot speak for themselves. What they say is to be interpreted as the patients will. This trumps the Police 100% in this situation. Learn the law before speaking on it please.

Xenomancers wrote:Bill of rights only protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case there was some confusion about what is unreasonable i guess. In the end - no illegal search took place - no one was hurt.

So what, Nurses are not people anymore and they can be illegally handcuffed and held against their will whenever the police want now? Are we ignoring this? This is a bad argument and you should feel bad about it.

The cop essentially kidnapped her. But he shouldn't lose his job? Because he is a cop? Because the policy is not updated?

I am pretty certain there are clear policies and laws in place about illegally arresting someone. In fact, you are the one that keeps bringing it up.

If it's someone's job to detain people that person needs to make damned sure he or she knows the reasons for detaining someone is legal or not. And watching the video it really looks like he was detaining the nurse to be a bully (add to that trying to use his job as a paramedic to be a bully).

I'd be happy to see him fired for this ludicrous display. It demonstrates that the person doesn't have the competency to do their job and is losing it for that reason.

If no one was harmed it's dumb luck, detaining a nurse is an insanely dangerous thing to do. At the very least the cops should have been having this discussion with the admin staff of the hospital not the nurse herself.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
"Attempted [illegal seizure]? What is that, really? Can you win a Nobel prize in Attempted Chemistry?"

Personally I feel safe and secure in the knowledge that if I try to murder someone and fail, there was no crime

This is more akin to trying to steal someones mail and failing.

Actually, it's more akin to a cop telling someone to sneak into and root around the house of someone not even suspected of a crime, then arresting anyone who refuses to do so for impeding an investigation.

The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.

On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.

Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?

feth that nonsense.

Mitochondria wrote:
Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?

feth that nonsense.

Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.

On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.

Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.

Video caught him admitting he had no PC. Trying harder.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.

On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.

Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.

It wasn't a lecture it was an explanation as to why nobody on staff was going to comply with the cop's request. The nurse calmly and professionally informed the officer of the policy. When the officer didn't accept that answer the nurse got her supervisor on the phone who then explained it again to the cop, making sure he knew why none of the hospital staff would comply with the request for a blood sample. The cop admitted he didn't have a warrant or probable cause and he was now aware of the hospital policy. The cop then resorted to unprofessional malicious threats and threw a tamper tantrum in public to the point of falsely arresting a nurse and forcibly removing her from the hospital when she hadn't broken any laws.

Do you think the officer conducted himself in a professional manner?
Do you think the officer's actions were a negative representation of his department and adversely affected his department?
Do you think it is reasonable to believe that this officer might behave in a similar fashion in the future?

Depending on what the officer's superiors believe are the answers to those questions the officer can be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including losing his job. He already got fired with cause from his second job due to the unprofessional, dangerous threats he levelled against the nurse that if carried out would have made his other employer vulnerable to a host of liability issues, lawsuits and potentially even criminal charges. Why should we hold police officers to a lower standard of professional conduct than EMTs/ambulance drivers?

 Frazzled wrote:
Video caught him admitting he had no PC. Trying harder.

For a warrant - If you pay attention he also claims he still has a legal authority to draw the sample.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Video caught him admitting he had no PC. Trying harder.

For a warrant - If you pay attention he also claims he still has a legal authority to draw the sample.

Ya, he lied, what a shock.

He had no legal authority, only his delusions let him believe he did.

He had no warrant, no PC, the man wasn't even a suspect, and the cop had no clue about the policy for getting blood drawn, the policy his station help set up and put in place. That amount of sheer incompetence should get him fired.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Video caught him admitting he had no PC. Trying harder.

For a warrant - If you pay attention he also claims he still has a legal authority to draw the sample.

Which he didn't. Fire him and ride him out of town on a rail.

 Xenomancers wrote:



Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.

If you have a job which interacts with the law- ie. any professional job- it's a safe bet that you know the laws that relate to your job.

Nurses contrary to your belief are a professional position with high professional standards in the developed world. Odds are good she went to school longer and is more up to date on the laws that relate to her profession than he is.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?

feth that nonsense.

Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?

That's a ah...mighty fine line there...and is absolutely false if the officers are acting illegally.

Also, police officers *are* civilians.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
The victim was heavily burned- wouldn't they have him on pain meds? That stuff would show up in a drug test right? I mean, this officer's department was partially responsible for this man being hit by a suspect. The cop was extremely adamant about obtaining the sample, going so far as to ignore the law explained to him and arresting the nurse.

On another tangent it infuriated me to no end when he exclaims, "She's the one who told me 'No'!" Like that's a valid reason to drag her out of the hospital. But I'm not surprised at all that a man with such a toxic mindset hasn't been fired yet.

Why should a police officer be swayed from his belief that he had a legal right to obtain the sample because a nurse is reading out of an employee handbook? Is she an expert at law? Does show have any legal authority over him? No. Does she know every possible exception to the rule? Nope. I'm not saying the nurse was wrong in her interpretation but I'm not sure why you think the officer should hold the nurses lecture in any kind of consideration.

It wasn't a lecture it was an explanation as to why nobody on staff was going to comply with the cop's request. The nurse calmly and professionally informed the officer of the policy. When the officer didn't accept that answer the nurse got her supervisor on the phone who then explained it again to the cop, making sure he knew why none of the hospital staff would comply with the request for a blood sample. The cop admitted he didn't have a warrant or probable cause and he was now aware of the hospital policy. The cop then resorted to unprofessional malicious threats and threw a tamper tantrum in public to the point of falsely arresting a nurse and forcibly removing her from the hospital when she hadn't broken any laws.

Do you think the officer conducted himself in a professional manner?
Do you think the officer's actions were a negative representation of his department and adversely affected his department?
Do you think it is reasonable to believe that this officer might behave in a similar fashion in the future?

Depending on what the officer's superiors believe are the answers to those questions the officer can be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including losing his job. He already got fired with cause from his second job due to the unprofessional, dangerous threats he levelled against the nurse that if carried out would have made his other employer vulnerable to a host of liability issues, lawsuits and potentially even criminal charges. Why should we hold police officers to a lower standard of professional conduct than EMTs/ambulance drivers?

-Impeding a police investigation is breaking a law and subjects you to arrest. Do you dispute this?
-Yes - the officer acted in a professional manner - believing he has legal authority to obtain the blood sample himself (he is fully qualified to do this) and being blocked by hospital staff he arrested the ring leader - this is standard procedure. People screaming blood murder when being handcuffed and arrested is also pretty standard - I'd also say it's unprofessional too.
- Considering the detectives behavior is consistent with acting on legal authority (he's even wearing a body cam) - I'd say a education on the current laws regarding specimen collection would prevent this from ever happening again.

I think police should be held to the same standard as everyone else - as in they should be forgiven for making the occasional mistake. Punishment if there is any should also be proportionate to the transgression - not increased based on public opinion and emotional overreaction.

He got fired sept 5th after this video came out. A viral social media reaction to this event - the ambulance company just cut ties. It has nothing to do with his conduct on that job. It's pretty much irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?

feth that nonsense.

Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?

That's a ah...mighty fine line there...and is absolutely false if the officers are acting illegally.

Also, police officers *are* civilians.

Police officers aren't civilians. What gives any citizen the ability to determine if a police officer is acting illegally?

The law?

Or is this a trick question?

 Xenomancers wrote:

He got fired sept 5th after this video came out. A viral social media reaction to this event - the ambulance company just cut ties. It has nothing to do with his conduct on that job. It's pretty much irrelevant.

You mean aside from the part where he talks about using his paramedic gig in a retaliatory fashion to dump transients at that hospital and take the "good" patients elsewhere?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?

feth that nonsense.

Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?

That's a ah...mighty fine line there...and is absolutely false if the officers are acting illegally.

Also, police officers *are* civilians.

Police officers aren't civilians.

According to both the dictionary definition of the word "civilian" and US code they sure are.

What gives any citizen the ability to determine if a police officer is acting illegally?

The same thing that gives a cop the ability to determine if someone is acting illegally, their knowledge of civil rights and the law. Police aren't given super-special-magical powers unknown to others about the law...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?

feth that nonsense.

Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?

Yes, this is a point of contention. She legally has the right to stop him from violating this man's rights. In fact, if she had not done so, she would be in serious trouble.

It appears you don't really know how any of this works. What is stranger is that you continue to defend this man while his bosses have said this is not proper behavior. You do not get to act like this because you think you are right, especially when there are professionals such as the nurses supervisor, whose job it is to know the law, are telling you that you are wrong. This is a bad cop getting caught doing bad things. Stop defending it. He made a mistake that is unforgivable. We are holding him to the same standards as any other profession. If you mess up this bad, you lose your job. If a nurse were to restrain a patient unnecessarily and against their will, but she thought she was in the right, you bet your ass they would lose their job. Then they would probably face criminal charges and loss of license. This guy has gotten a slap on the wrist in comparison.

Wow...so the guy is talking to his friend after the fact and makes a joke and you are trying to use that against him? That's just silly. It's completely understandable why he'd be frustrated and stressed after this even.

You are talking semantics with your definition of what a civilian is.This will vary based on what dictionary you are looking at. It's not uncommon to count police as standing army in military situations - hence they are not civilians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
Did Xenomancer just say comply to anything a cop tells you to do?

feth that nonsense.

Nah I never said that. I said multiple times that civilians can't interfere with officers. Is this a point of contention?

Yes, this is a point of contention. She legally has the right to stop him from violating this man's rights. In fact, if she had not done so, she would be in serious trouble.

She doesn't - please demonstrate how she does. She wouldn't be in trouble...literally nothing would have happens if she let the police officer draw the blood. If anything illegal occurred - the cop would be in trouble.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Wow...so the guy is talking to his friend after the fact and makes a joke and you are trying to use that against him? That's just silly. It's completely understandable why he'd be frustrated and stressed after this even.

Inappropriate jokes get people fired all the time, especially in such professions, and for good reason. Either way, dude made a threat to abuse a position in a retaliatory manner without regard for the welfare of the people in his care. I'm not inclined at all to be sympathetic because he's stressed after losing his temper...

Even worse, the dude knows he is being recorded, and lacks the good judgement to think about that before making such a statement, which in and of itself should be enough to remove him. The dude's situational awareness and judgement are clearly flawed.

Doing that on camera would get most people fired, even without the arrest issue.

You are talking semantics with your definition of what a civilian is.This will vary based on what dictionary you are looking at. It's not uncommon to count police as standing army in military situations - hence they are not civilians.

Not in the US. I am not talking semantics at all, and this is codified into law. If you are not enlisted or hold no commission on the US armed forces, you are a civilian as far as US law is concerned, which is extremely relevant.

Police officers very much are civilians in the US.

She doesn't - please demonstrate how she does. She wouldn't be in trouble...literally nothing would have happens if she let the police officer draw the blood. If anything illegal occurred - the cop would be in trouble.

Yes...because the police investigating themselves, particularly without massive public presssure, has such a great track record of working so well...

Had the nurse stood aside, the officer would have engaged in an illegal act and nothing else would have ever happened...just as nothing would have happened without the release of the video.

Also, the nurse would have been in trouble had she just stood aside...if not with the police on hand then with her licensing board and administration.

Wait, drawing the blood of the guy that got run over, while the police were chasing someone else, isn't illegal?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Wait, drawing the blood of the guy that got run over, while the police were chasing someone else, isn't illegal?

It Super duper illegal: its Unconstitutional.

Heres a hypothetical Vaktathi -
Lets say the nurse didn't interfere and Payne drew the lab sample. It's found to contain methamphetamine and the truck driver was drunk during the accident.

The county tries to deny any culpability to the accident because the guy was intoxicated. Then...the truck drivers attorney gets the records and finds they get collected illegally. The lab reports are stricken from the record and the case is thrown out. As would anything found in an illegal seizure. They would also be ordered to destroy the records. In other words - samples collected illegally are 100% useless. There is no incentive to collect evidence illegally.