TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:I certainly hope so... I'm not in at 1.6M!

mojo84 wrote:$1.6 million settlement. I guess clinching in NM doesn't warrant what the cops did after all.

http://www.google.com/producer/s/CBIwqNm6lhA

texanjoker wrote:Pretty harsh to go for a rectal based on a dude clenching his butt. I would like to read the search warrant affidavit to hear their side. They must be hard up for a dope arrest if they go through all this. Pretty lame.

mamabearCali wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

jmra wrote:Where was the nurse who should have been acting as the patient advocate who would have stopped the procedure for lack of consent? Where was the risk management specialist for the hospital? Where was the hospital legal counsel who should have been consulted before action was taken?
I see major procedure changes at this hospital along with privileges being yanked from several doctors assuming they manage to get past the medical review board.

They had a warrant, so no lack of consent.

Warrant means nothing to medical personnel. A nurse could have stopped the procedure just as the doctor at the first ER did. I have a family member that runs an OR - showed the story to her and she laughed. You can bring any warrant you want into her OR, without patient consent they aren't touching the patient.

Not sure about other states. Texas can require assistance in executing a search warrant.

Just checked to make sure, not at a private hospital. Also a nurse or doctor practicing in Texas at a public hospital can refuse to comply based on the Hippocratic oath...first, do no harm. This info was confirmed with a local hospitals legal council.
ETA: in short, a warrant can compel a public hospital to comply but the hospital can not compel its employees to comply.

I was wrong...don't even need a warrant. Obv, we're teetering on the cutting edge of case law, so it is an extreme example. That said... The CCP could be applied (though poorly IMO) in a way to avoid the non-compliance of medical personnel.

Art. 2.14. MAY SUMMON AID. Whenever a peace officer meets with resistance in discharging any duty imposed upon him by law, he shall summon a sufficient number of citizens of his county to overcome the resistance; and all persons summoned are bound to obey.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.


Art. 2.15. PERSON REFUSING TO AID. The peace officer who has summoned any person to assist him in performing any duty shall report such person, if he refuse to obey, to the proper district or county attorney, in order that he may be prosecuted for the offense.

As a LEO, I hope you are not okay with forcing people including medical professionals to violate other people against their own conscience and good sense.

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

jmra wrote:Where was the nurse who should have been acting as the patient advocate who would have stopped the procedure for lack of consent? Where was the risk management specialist for the hospital? Where was the hospital legal counsel who should have been consulted before action was taken?
I see major procedure changes at this hospital along with privileges being yanked from several doctors assuming they manage to get past the medical review board.

They had a warrant, so no lack of consent.

Warrant means nothing to medical personnel. A nurse could have stopped the procedure just as the doctor at the first ER did. I have a family member that runs an OR - showed the story to her and she laughed. You can bring any warrant you want into her OR, without patient consent they aren't touching the patient.

Not sure about other states. Texas can require assistance in executing a search warrant.

Just checked to make sure, not at a private hospital. Also a nurse or doctor practicing in Texas at a public hospital can refuse to comply based on the Hippocratic oath...first, do no harm. This info was confirmed with a local hospitals legal council.
ETA: in short, a warrant can compel a public hospital to comply but the hospital can not compel its employees to comply.

I was wrong...don't even need a warrant. Obv, we're teetering on the cutting edge of case law, so it is an extreme example. That said... The CCP could be applied (though poorly IMO) in a way to avoid the non-compliance of medical personnel.

Art. 2.14. MAY SUMMON AID. Whenever a peace officer meets with resistance in discharging any duty imposed upon him by law, he shall summon a sufficient number of citizens of his county to overcome the resistance; and all persons summoned are bound to obey.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.


Art. 2.15. PERSON REFUSING TO AID. The peace officer who has summoned any person to assist him in performing any duty shall report such person, if he refuse to obey, to the proper district or county attorney, in order that he may be prosecuted for the offense.

gigag04 wrote:

jmra wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

jmra wrote:Where was the nurse who should have been acting as the patient advocate who would have stopped the procedure for lack of consent? Where was the risk management specialist for the hospital? Where was the hospital legal counsel who should have been consulted before action was taken?
I see major procedure changes at this hospital along with privileges being yanked from several doctors assuming they manage to get past the medical review board.

They had a warrant, so no lack of consent.

Warrant means nothing to medical personnel. A nurse could have stopped the procedure just as the doctor at the first ER did. I have a family member that runs an OR - showed the story to her and she laughed. You can bring any warrant you want into her OR, without patient consent they aren't touching the patient.

Not sure about other states. Texas can require assistance in executing a search warrant.

mamabearCali wrote:

jmra wrote: Some of our LEO friends can chime in, but I'm not sure if or how much personal liability a public servant is exposed to while performing their duties.
As far as the dept getting sued, ultimately it's not their money - it's yours. When they run out, they just come take more of yours.

That is what needs to change. If a LEO violates the highest law of our land and deprives a citizen of his natural rights enumerated under our constitution there needs to very little to no shielding for them. It is better that they never again are able to find drugs hidden within someone than to deprive a citizen of his God given right to live free of sexual assault. This crew acted unconscionably, the whole lot from the LEO to the dog handler to the judge to the doctors. We need to have serious consequences for aberrations like this.

mamabearCali wrote:

jmra wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:So the question of the day is. How do we make it..."not good business" for the police to obliterate the laws of our land.

Very difficult to accomplish because gov agencies are not P&L centers.

But the Police departments do have budgets and insurance and the LEO's conducting this assault under color of law have homes and cars and jobs. I am sure some of those things are important to someone.

mamabearCali wrote:So the question of the day is. How do we make it..."not good business" for the police to obliterate the laws of our land.

C-dub wrote:

jmra wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

jmra wrote:Where was the nurse who should have been acting as the patient advocate who would have stopped the procedure for lack of consent? Where was the risk management specialist for the hospital? Where was the hospital legal counsel who should have been consulted before action was taken?
I see major procedure changes at this hospital along with privileges being yanked from several doctors assuming they manage to get past the medical review board.

They had a warrant, so no lack of consent.

Warrant means nothing to medical personnel. A nurse could have stopped the procedure just as the doctor at the first ER did. I have a family member that runs an OR - showed the story to her and she laughed. You can bring any warrant you want into her OR, without patient consent they aren't touching the patient.

This might be why the police are learning phlebotomy. This way they can execute a warrant to draw blood from someone on one of those "no refusal" weekends.

jimlongley wrote:

jmra wrote:Where was the nurse who should have been acting as the patient advocate who would have stopped the procedure for lack of consent? Where was the risk management specialist for the hospital? Where was the hospital legal counsel who should have been consulted before action was taken?
I see major procedure changes at this hospital along with privileges being yanked from several doctors assuming they manage to get past the medical review board.

They had a warrant, so no lack of consent.