quote:

Refusal to Provide Breath or Blood Sample Upon Request

When you drive on Utah's roads you are considered to have consented to giving a sample of your breath, urine, blood, or "oral fluids" to determine your BAC level while operating a vehicle. If you are asked to provide such a sample and you refuse your license is subject to an administrative suspension just as if you had taken the test and failed. If your license is to be suspended for a refusal to provide a breath or blood sample you may be able to challenge the suspension by requesting a hearing...

Officer Selects Type of Test

You should note that you are not permitted to insist on a specific type of test. The type of test to be administered is up to the officer and the officer may request multiple types of tests. Even if you have already performed one test, should you refuse additional requests from the officer for more testing, that refusal can be used as a basis for suspending your license. In short, the implied consent law places you at the officer's mercy as any interference on your part can be considered a refusal and you will suffer severe penalties...

We are unaware of any other constitutionally protected right than can be waived through implied consent. Nevertheless, Utah has passed a law that dictates your act of driving on a Utah road is consent to provide samples of bodily fluids. Furthermore, that consent cannot be withdrawn. Such a law seems to fly in the face of two centuries of constitutional jurisprudence.

Fortunately, the implied consent law has been under attack in the federal courts. However, these challenges are typically limited to challenges of warrantless blood draws. This is likely because there really is not a way to get a forced breath test, so anytime an office compels testing it is done through blood draw. Due to the challenges and success in federal courts, Utah officers will almost always seek a warrant before initiating a blood draw...

Finally, while you may refuse to answer some questions and you may refuse to do the field sobriety tests you are required to submit to a blood, urine, or breath test if lawfully requested to do so by an officer (see refusal section above). Exercise caution in deciding whether to refuse a test as the consequences can be severe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

Just saw this covered on ABC news. The nurse refused because of "hospital policy." It really would be nice if they had checked Utah law for such situations. The guy they wanted to blood test had caused a fatal crash.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

Okay, just checked and Utah DOES have an implied consent law in DUI cases. Which means the cop had every right to demand a blood test as soon as possible, (spelled out by the law) and no warrant or signed consent form is required. The nurse was totally in the wrong under the law.

"Implied Consent Law in Utah

The main purpose of the Implied Consent Law is to give authorities liberty to assume that an individual being convicted has consented to a chemical test to provide evidence of alcohol influence. Therefore when someone is being convicted the Implied Consent Law states that the individual must submit to a chemical test. The law also holds punishments and penalties to those who refuse to do so. If the refusal is found to be considerably unreasonable the law also provides that the driver’s license may be suspended. This threat of revocation or suspension is also another means of encouraging the driver to a chemical test."

From a Utah DUI denfense lawyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I cant watch the video so I am at a little disadvantage.

was the "victim" driving a car? or was he a pedestrian or passenger?

if he was driving, and the cop has a reason to be suspicious (does the video explicitly state otherwise?), the law seems to still be on his side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Made2Obey

Okay, just checked and Utah DOES have an implied consent law in DUI cases. Which means the cop had every right to demand a blood test as soon as possible, (spelled out by the law) and no warrant or signed consent form is required. The nurse was totally in the wrong under the law.

"Implied Consent Law in Utah

The main purpose of the Implied Consent Law is to give authorities liberty to assume that an individual being convicted has consented to a chemical test to provide evidence of alcohol influence. Therefore when someone is being convicted the Implied Consent Law states that the individual must submit to a chemical test. The law also holds punishments and penalties to those who refuse to do so. If the refusal is found to be considerably unreasonable the law also provides that the driver’s license may be suspended. This threat of revocation or suspension is also another means of encouraging the driver to a chemical test."

From a Utah DUI denfense lawyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

i just posted an explanation of the law from lawyers in Utah. I just went back and looked, the copyright on the page is 2016.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind

I looked and ABC news only said that the truck driver had been involved in a fatal crash.
UPI reports that "a suspect fled the scene and was killed." Doesn't say who or how the suspect was killed, or what vehicle he or she fled from.
I can tell you from experience that any fatal incident involving a truck driver is going to result in a blood test of the driver.
He need not be under suspicion or arrest. Implied consent means that if you operate a vehicle you have already consented to testing. In Utah's case the type(s) of test are up to the officer. Testing truck drivers involved in a crash is pretty much standard procedure. In some cases they can be beneficial to the driver if he comes up clean and he is later sued. Drivers also get points under a DOT system used to identify unsafe drivers, every time they pass such a test or a roadside inspection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
So Utah law trumps the Supreme Court?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I wont be able to get to that link, but I see from the title that it says "warrants for some, but not all"

that gives the cop even more room.

and we're still wondering whether or not Utah choses to follow the federal interpretation on the matter. plus what haverope just said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
So Utah law trumps the Supreme Court?

the supreme court doesn't make laws. it decides court cases. so regardless of recent decisions to the contrary, Utah could conceivably continue as they have been. [\quote]

quote:

also, go back to the link you posted saying "some cases require warrants, others don't."

quote:

lastly, even if "needing a warrant" for a blood draw was a federal law, Utah could chose to ignore it. there are a handful of laws where states do just that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

cops mess up sometimes. all people do.

whats your point?

The cop admitted that none of the criteria needed to get the blood drawn was present. But he arrested her anyway.

He was being a dick. Purposely.

He should know 2 things.

1 At some time in his life, he will be in the hospital.
2. Nurses have long memories and a lot of them are fucking sadists.