Originally Posted by
Alan
That was just stupid, although there are extenuating circumstances. Have you ever heard of Implied Consent and the recent changes to the pretty much universal implied consent law? When I was involved in active policing the premise of Implied Consent enabled police to take breath or blood or urine samples from an unconscious driver. It is also Implied Consent which enables the state to revoke a drivers license from a conscious driver suspected of driving under the influence if that driver refuses to consent to breath/blood/urine testing. In this case I was actually surprised to hear that the Supreme Court ruled that blood samples would no longer be covered under the Implied Consent Law as of just last year.
Another extenuating circumstance is that the police officer in question is also a trained phlebotomist, which is why he was chosen for the detail. He went to the hospital to take the blood himself, not to demand the nurse do so. Whether right or wrong, the fact that she refused access to the patient could be seen as an obstruction of justice.
There may be others but I'm not aware of what they may be, that's where the court system comes into play. The court of public opinion isn't informed enough to enforce the retaliation you'd like to see.