Cop arrests nurse for doing her job and following the law.

[GNARKILL!]

Cool go ahead and do that. Let me know how it works out.

No the fact is none of you will admit she was wrong to obstruct the officer whether she believed it was legal or not. The court system has checks and balances to determine whether the officer acted with in the scope of his duties or not, she does not have that authority no matter what you think. He was conducting a criminal investigation acting on behalf of the outside agency. She has every right to file complaints after the fact and it will be investigated

Do you not understand that she can be sued by the patient? If that happens she can possibly lose her license.

[dhawkeye1980]

Do you not understand that she can be sued by the patient? If that happens she can possibly lose her license.

Sigh

She wont be sued...

She was being forced to do it under compulsion of arrest

She makes a complaint with dept of health who will investigate the officer for hippa violation

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Clinos]

Cool go ahead and do that. Let me know how it works out.

No the fact is none of you will admit she was wrong to obstruct the officer whether she believed it was legal or not. The court system has checks and balances to determine whether the officer acted with in the scope of his duties or not, she does not have that authority no matter what you think. He was conducting a criminal investigation acting on behalf of the outside agency. She has every right to file complaints after the fact and it will be investigated

Think you are replying to the wrong person, I didn't say I was going to do anything. I can't update you on anything.

She didn't obstruct anything at all dude. Even if in some crazy bizzaro way she did obstruct it would have been tossed and her released...just as it played out. She wasn't charged but he will be.

I don't understand how you are skipping the words from the Mayor, Governor, another Police Department, and now the District Attorney.

[z4v4]

Sigh

She wont be sued...

She was being forced to do it under compulsion of arrest

She makes a complaint with dept of health who will investigate the officer for hippa violation

Why is that so hard to understand?

Cuz that's not how lawsuits work? McD's successfully got sued for coffee being too hot. Coffee, you know, that hot **** that's supposed to be served hot.

[dhawkeye1980]

Think you are replying to the wrong person, I didn't say I was going to do anything. I can't update you on anything.

She didn't obstruct anything at all dude. Even if in some crazy bizzaro way she did obstruct it would have been tossed and her released...just as it played out. She wasn't charged but he will be.

I don't understand how you are skipping the words from the Mayor, Governor, another Police Department, and now the District Attorney.

So elected officials who dont want to commit career suicide by admitted she could have handled it differently?

Color me shocked

[GNARKILL!]

Sigh

She wont be sued...

She was being forced to do it under compulsion of arrest

She makes a complaint with dept of health who will investigate the officer for hippa violation

Why is that so hard to understand?

And you know that how? She can be sued. Anyone can be sued for anything.

[Clinos]

So elected officials who dont want to commit career suicide by admitted she could have handled it differently?

Color me shocked

You are the only person on the internet saying she should have complied. The police department of the victim (who is the forgotten patient) is even affirming that she did the correct thing. It really is you vs. the entire internet.

[dhawkeye1980]

Cuz that's not how lawsuits work? McD's successfully got sued for coffee being too hot. Coffee, you know, that hot **** that's supposed to be served hot.

Whatever you say bro. Like i said you do what you want i couldnt care less

[dhawkeye1980]

You are the only person on the internet saying she should have complied. The police department of the officer (the forgotten patient) is even affirming that she did the correct thing. It really is you vs. the entire internet.

Yea its really hard to imagine in the anti police era we live in right now that depts wont scramble to cover their asses.

Im well aware that everyone believes she is a hero. My point is there was a better way to handle it. Im sorry you believe obstructing is an applaudable behavior but i dont believe that

[GNARKILL!]

Yea its really hard to imagine in the anti police era we live in right now that depts wont scramble to cover their asses.

Im well aware that everyone believes she is a hero. My point is there was a better way to handle it. Im sorry you believe obstructing is an applaudable behavior but i dont believe that

Yup their was a better way for the officer to handle it. He didn't and now he will possible lose his job over it.

[dhawkeye1980]

Yup their was a better way for the officer to handle it. He didn't and now he will possible lose his job over it.

2 wrongs dont make a right

[Clinos]

Yea its really hard to imagine in the anti police era we live in right now that depts wont scramble to cover their asses.

Im well aware that everyone believes she is a hero. My point is there was a better way to handle it. Im sorry you believe obstructing is an applaudable behavior but i dont believe that

Wont' deny for a moment that people and some in elected positions are anti-police. But this doesn't seem to be that kind of a case. And if it is, then I hope that law enforcement understands not to give up easy fruit like this to those who want to push an agenda against them. But again this isn't that kind of a case.

It's not even their department they are trying to cover it is the other police department, the one that the victim is an officer of who are publicly celebrating this womans stand up to another law enforcement agency. That's pretty telling. If they thought it was obstruction and a legal arrest why would they say anything? Having people obstruct isn't worth the free PR for them as it would create more pushback on every arrest they made going forward and put their officers lives at risk.

[dhawkeye1980]

Wont' deny for a moment that people and some in elected positions are anti-police. But this doesn't seem to be that kind of a case. And if it is, then I hope that law enforcement understands not to give up easy fruit like this to those who want to push an agenda against them. But again this isn't that kind of a case.

It's not even their department they are trying to cover it is the other police department, the one that the victim is an officer of who are publicly celebrating this womans stand up to another law enforcement agency. That's pretty telling. If they thought it was obstruction and a legal arrest why would they say anything? Having people obstruct isn't worth the free PR for them as it would create more pushback on every arrest them made going forward and put their officers lives at risk.

Depts and officials are literally tucking tail and running at the slightest push back from the community. You risk a riot by saying the nurse should have complied to avoid arrest.

[Clinos]

Depts and officials are literally tucking tail and running at the slightest push back from the community. You risk a riot by saying the nurse should have complied to avoid arrest.

Wait. Why wouldn't a community push back against a man pushing a nurse around a hospital? Lets be honest here.

[Liff_Wates]

Depts and officials are literally tucking tail and running at the slightest push back from the community. You risk a riot by saying the nurse should have complied to avoid arrest.

Even the cop knew it wasn't "obstruction" because he didn't charge her. He just bullied her because he is a garbage LEO. You can't "obstruct" an unlawful search.

[Duckenheimer]

Let's be clear: She did not interfere with or obstruct the officer's duties in anyway. He however, clearly interfered with and obstructed her duties. Painting her as the one interfering in the other's job is outright Orwellian. She had an obligation to follow procedure, and she did. He had that obligation too, and he didn't.

[dhawkeye1980]

Lots of "if"s here but her we go.

If she would have complied she would have broke Fed law HIPPA, and could have been fined up to 50,000. The officer would have not gotten anything out of it. The only provision in HIPPA law is in the case of national security. This is in no way national security, so the burden would fall on the healthcare provider by not meeting the permitted uses and disclosures criteria.
Or
He could have simply secured a warrant.

I'm usually on your side in a law-enforcement debate, but this officer blew it. He could have had an E-warrant in 10min.

He couldnt obtain a warrant because it wasnt his case nor his departments case.

You think the Dept of Health would rather her be arrested than to simply file a complaint after the fact? It would be extremely unlikely they would go after the healthcare provider in a situation like this

[dhawkeye1980]

Let's be clear: She did not interfere with or obstruct the officer's duties in anyway. He however, clearly interfered with and obstructed her duties. Painting her as the one interfering in the other's job is outright Orwellian. She had an obligation to follow procedure, and she did. He had that obligation too, and he didn't.

Like it or not she did interfere. Its not on her to prove the legalness of the cops investigation. Thats why we have checks and balances.

[Duckenheimer]

Like it or not she did interfere. Its not on her to prove the legalness of the cops investigation. Thats why we have checks and balances.

Orwellian BS. It is on her to follow procedure which she did. It's on him too, which he didn't. She interfered with nobody's duties, the cop on the other hand, clearly did.

The cop clearly is the only one who interfered with and obstructed duties and procedure.

[dhawkeye1980]

Orwellian BS. It is on her to follow procedure which she did. It's on him too, which he didn't. She interfered with nobody's duties, the cop on the other hand, clearly did.

The cop clearly is the only one who interfered with and obstructed duties and procedure.

Okie dokie

[dhawkeye1980]

A simple call to the on-call magistrate would have solved his problem.

They would be filing a complaint against themselves for braking the law. "We just broke the HIPPA law" No, their was a legal burden on both parties. The healthcare provider met their obligations in full. The officer did not meet his legal obligations. If the healthcare provider would have complied, they would have the legal obligations on their self's. Much like any search and seizure the proprietor of the property is responsible for said property until a court order is issued. Anyone can ask for possession, but a court order puts the legal burden of the property on the court.

SLC was getting the blood drawn for another agency so no he could not have called to obtain a warrant for another agencies case. The burden of proof would have been on the officer as law enforcement also function within the parameters of hippa.

[Kiknskreem]

But there are avenues to handle it after the fact, getting into it in a hospital waiting room is not it, no matter what rights you think are being violated

Sorry, health care providers are there to advocate for and protect their patient, not lick boots.

She put herself at risk to do so and should be lauded for it.

[dhawkeye1980]

Sorry, health care providers are there to advocate for and protect their patient, not lick boots.

She put herself at risk to do so and should be lauded for it.

Okie dokie

[Kiknskreem]

As stated she was not in a position to disobey a lawful order.

Still trying to claim that this was a lawful order?

LMAO.

[dhawkeye1980]

Still trying to claim that this was a lawful order?

LMAO.

Ive said my side you believe what you want its not up to her to decide what is a lawful order or not thats up to the courts.

You want to advocate resisting or obstructing be my guest. I wont

[dhawkeye1980]

Their are only two provisions in HIPPA regarding this 1. a court order, and 2. A matter of national security.
Neither were met. He could have call the other agency, and they could have obtained a warrant through a magistrate with little effort.

HIPAA permits the disclosure of Protected Health Information (“PHI”) to law enforcement officials in specified circumstances:
Pursuant to legal process and as otherwise required by law;
To a limited degree, for purposes of identifying and locating certain classes of persons;
As necessary to alert law enforcement to the commission and circumstances of a crime.
“Law enforcement” is broadly conceived by HIPAA. It includes any governmental agency or official authorized to investigate, prosecute or conduct an inquiry into a potential violation of law.
NOTE about the relationship of HIPAA and state law: HIPAA does not require the disclosure of PHI without an individual’s consent or authorization in any circumstance. Rather, HIPAA permits nonconsensual or unauthorized disclosures in specified circumstances.

Moreover, HIPAA establishes minimum, not maximum, protections for PHI. State law that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of PHI will control even if such disclosure is permitted by HIPAA. Thus, if state law limits the manner or circumstances in which a disclosure permitted by HIPAA may be made, then these state law provisions must be followed.

Legal Process: In the law enforcement context, “legal process” means a formal written demand or request from a judicial or enforcement agency. Disclosure must be strictly limited to the scope of the request. Legal process involves documents like:
A court order;
A court-ordered warrant;
A subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer (e.g., a tribal inspector general)
A grand jury subpoena; and
An administrative subpoena, summons, or investigative demand.

Disclosure of PHI to an enforcement agency that is not a “health oversight agency” is permitted only to the extent that the request meets a three-part test: (1) de-identified information will not suffice, (2) the information sought is relevant to a stated and legitimate law enforcement inquiry, and (3) the scope of the request is no more than is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the request.
The covered entity must obtain the agency’s affirmative representation that the PHI sought is the minimum necessary for its stated purpose. The covered entity’s reliance on the agency’s representation of minimum necessity must be reasonable in light of all the circumstances. If you have any doubts about whether a formal law enforcement request meets the criteria for disclosure

HIPAA generally does not require law enforcement officials to make requests or representations in writing. However, it is in the covered entity’s interest to obtain written law enforcement requests and representations about requests in writing. At a minimum, requests and representations should be documented by the covered entity.

That is not the only 2 times hippa info can be released to LEA

[Graymare]

Still trying to claim that this was a lawful order?

LMAO.

No point in arguing with him. An officer could commit murder and he would defend him regardless. It's saddening how for 8 pages he's been trying too put the blame on the nurse and not his cop buddy. I'm sorry dhawkeye1980 but you're behavior in this topic is disgusting and just outright unprofessional.

[dhawkeye1980]

No point in arguing with him. An officer could commit murder and he would defend him regardless. It's saddening how for 8 pages he's been trying too put the blame on the nurse and not his cop buddy. I'm sorry dhawkeye1980 but you're behavior in this topic is disgusting and just outright unprofessional.

What behavior is that? Im sorry you believe its okay to disobey a law enforcement order but as i posted above hipaa agrees with me. Whats hilarious in nearly everyone of these threads people like you come in and bash me yet i always turn out to be right. Its quite comical really

[SillieBazzillie]

No point in arguing with him. An officer could commit murder and he would defend him regardless. It's saddening how for 8 pages he's been trying too put the blame on the nurse and not his cop buddy. I'm sorry dhawkeye1980 but you're behavior in this topic is disgusting and just outright unprofessional.

It's how the bad cops think. They put on the badge and are above the law suddenly.

It's really our fault as a nation for making the requirements to become a cop so low that virtually anyone with a pulse is qualified.

[dhawkeye1980]

It's how the bad cops think. They put on the badge and are above the law suddenly.

Is that what i said? Pretty sure i said he should be fired/disciplined for escalating it. But that doesnt mean she is a hero for obstructing an investigation. Not to mention hipaa agrees with me that an investigative demand is enough to satisfy hipaa and that she should have documented it properly

But sadly cop hating is something ive come to expect from the misc, most of you simply jump on the medias nuts without even understanding the sitiation