B0ycey wrote:Well that depends. Was alcohol involved?
This is your post that started this whole conversation. Scroll back up and tell me what else I should have interpreted from this?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
B0ycey wrote:Well that depends. Was alcohol involved?
Utah's "implied consent" law says that if you are lawfully arrested by an officer who has probable cause to believe that you have been driving under the influence, then you consent to taking a chemical test of your blood, breath, urine, or saliva for the purpose of determining your blood alcohol content (BAC). The test must be taken as soon as possible from when you were last driving and the officer gets to choose which test you take.
A test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision.......
Drlee wrote:One Degree. Pay the fuck attention. You do not understand the implied consent law and it is making you look stupid.
From the actual Utah law: (b)
So you see you are wrong in oh so many ways. The implied consent law not only didn't apply, the officer was in violation of it.
Take your condescending attitude and shove it up your pampered ass.
test or tests authorized under this Subsection (1) must be administered at the direction of a peace officer having grounds to believe that person to have been operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while in violation of any provision under Subsections (1)(a)(i) through (iii).
A person who operates a motor vehicle in this state gives consent, subject to section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-1383, to a test or tests of the person's blood, breath, urine or other bodily substance for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or drug content if the person is arrested for any offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed in violation of this chapter or section 4-244, paragraph 34 while the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
...when such officer has reasonable grounds and probable cause to believe that the person was driving or had under his actual physical control a motor vehicle upon the public streets or highways of this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any other substance which had impaired such person's ability to operate a motor vehicle.
So, you enlarge your words to disguise the fact you are wrong and Utah does not require an arrest.
Drlee wrote:You can't read. You simply can't read. No need for me to worry about you anymore.
One Degree wrote:Have you actually read any legal opinions on the case? I believe I already posted this one, but here it is again.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentar ... mplicated/
You are reading a specific law and basing your argument on thinking you know what it means. We are not lawyers. I based my view upon this legal opinion. If you read it carefully, I think you will understand why I called it a 'nuanced misunderstanding'. If you just read the first part, you will think it supports your position, but laws are not always as clear cut as they first appear. The law you quoted for instance does not deal with him being unconscious. (How do you place an unconscious person under arrest?) The laws must deal with this, usually through court cases, which changes the meaning of the law even though the words may not change.
These are 'nuances' for lawyers to argue, not you and I. My argument is it was a 'nuanced misunderstanding', and the legal opinion I linked discusses the legality being complicated.
Heisenberg wrote:A police can place someone under arrest even if they are unconscious.
A police officer needs to have "probable cause" for an arrest, and for an implied consent law to apply.
Neither of these conditions was met. There is no "nuanced misunderstanding" at play. The officer was wrong. The nurse was right.
You are also yet to explain how taking a blood sample from the victim would protect him, since he was not suspected of a crime and the perpetrator of the crime was dead (meaning there would be no trial).
But while Utah’s law is constitutional, it turns out not to have permitted this specific blood draw. As written, Utah’s law only permits an officer to conduct such a test where he has reasonable grounds to believe that a person from whom blood is to be taken was driving “while in violation of” the laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances. In this case, the detective specifically lacked any such grounds, because the draw was being taken to show the opposite – that the driver was not under the influence.
7-30-14. Arrest without warrant.
The arrest of a person may be lawfully made also by any peace officer or a private person without a warrant upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of a state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but when so arrested the accused must be taken before a judge or magistrate with all practicable speed and complaint must be made against him under oath setting forth the ground for the arrest as in Section 77-30-13, and thereafter his answer shall be heard as if he had been arrested on a warrant.
77-7-2. Arrest by peace officers.
A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(a) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; and
(b) as used in this Subsection (1), "presence" includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;
(2) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe a felony or a class A misdemeanor has been committed and has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed it;
(3) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense, and there is reasonable cause for believing the person may:
(a) flee or conceal himself to avoid arrest;
(b) destroy or conceal evidence of the commission of the offense; or
(c) injure another person or damage property belonging to another person;
(4) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed the offense of failure to disclose identity under Section 76-8-301.5; or
(5) when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person is an alien:
(a) subject to a civil removal order issued by an immigration judge;
(b) regarding whom a civil detainer warrant has been issued by the federal Department of Homeland Security; or
(c) who has been charged or convicted in another state with one or more aggravated felonies as defined by 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(43).
77-7-6. Manner of making arrest.
(1) The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause, and authority to arrest him.
77-7-1. "Arrest" defined -- Restraint allowed.
An arrest is an actual restraint of the person arrested or submission to custody. The person shall not be subjected to any more restraint than is necessary for his arrest and detention.
77-9-2. Procedure after arrest.
An officer who has made an arrest pursuant to Section 77-9-1 shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before a magistrate of the county in which the arrest was made. The magistrate shall conduct a hearing to determine the lawfulness of the arrest. If he finds the arrest was lawful, the magistrate may commit the person arrested for a reasonable time or may admit the person to bail pending extradition proceedings.
He didn’t tell him you must cease and desist, he simply said ‘don’t worry about it, we’ll go another way,'” Jensen told CNN. “I just don’t believe (Payne’s) actions were in the best interest of the patient, the nurses or law enforcement, quite frankly.
“He could have just packed up and gone home,” Jensen added.
Everything listed is an act of god, including the […]
Liberals\"progressives" are the biggest[…]
@Truth To Power Have some work to do atm, so I'[…]
Fixing a country like the US is really easy. Comm[…]