I could not find an existing thread on this and I wanted to ask the opinions of some legal professionals rather than sift through comments on YouTube or local news sites. I recently stumbled upon the story of University of Utah nurse Alex Wubbels who was detained for refusing to conduct a blood draw on a motorist, Marcos Torres, who was rear-ended by a suspect fleeing police and was being treated under Wubbels care at the hospital.
Initial video from Det Payne's body cam:
Aftermath from Lt. Tracy's body cam:
It turns out Wubbels was awarded a $500K settlement and Det. Payne was fired. NBC and other news outlets of course show the most graphic footage of arguments between Payne and Wubbels ending with her crying while being handcuffed.
I feel really bad for the nurse, but I'm not sure the officer did anything wrong. From what I've seen the officer contacted his LT who confirmed Payne must have a blood sample otherwise the obstructing official (in this case Wubbels) should be arrested. Payned stated a few times with Wubbels and other hospital staff that he would rather not conduct an arrest and that there were exigent circumstances. I've also read that "implied consent" indicates any Utah motorist may be subject to a blood test, but then it indicates a motorist may refuse the blood test and then the policy may seek a warrant.
Ultimately this is not something that should be argued between a detective and a nurse. It should be addressed at a much higher level which the Utah Governor did by signing new reform into law. But that being said do you think the officer should have been fired and Wubbels given a settlement? Why or why not? What non-legal factors do you think came into play here (i.e. the fact that she was an olympian, the NBC editing of the video, her race or gender, etc).