The problem here is that the truck driver is not and was not a suspect of any kind. So what was the articulable probable cause for a non-suspect, how does implied consent apply to a non-suspect. The cops were blowing smoke because all the verbiage they were applying doesn’t apply to a non-suspect.
And it doesn’t matter if the cop was a phlebotomist because not even licensed doctors can do procedures in a hospital that doesn’t give them permission. And burn units are highly restrictive access because of the very high infection rates and depending on where the burns are, a blood draw may not even have been physically possible and a central line has to be done and phlebotomists aren’t certified for central lines.
All good points...I was just “devil’s advocating” because most of us were doing the knee-jerk “how can the cops possibly be in the right when they are trying to get a blood sample on an innocent victim!” Then we are reminded about CDL holders (commercial truck drivers) have a mandated blood test rule (U.S. DOT)(not immediately applicable in this case), and then the detectives’ “exigent circumstances” argument comes out (in his report). And this all happened back on July 26th, so I would imagine the nurse’s lawyer has his case formed up by now...will be interesting to follow the trial if any....will probably try for a $$ settlement.