Video shows Utah nurse screaming, being dragged into police car after refusing to let officer...

SPC Kevin Ford - Kevin, EVERY case you mention has to do with forced taking of blood under threat of criminal sanction. In Florida, Liles was forced taking of blood through the use of force when he refused.
Not a single case has anything to do with the taking of blood under Implied Consent. That has been decided long ago that breath is the preferred method because it is the least intrusive. However, the courts also acknowledged that there were times when a breath test was not reasonable (specifically, when a subject is unconscious or incapacitated). Therefore, in this case, blood was the logical form of test.
You can repeat those cases over and over again but you cannot equate Forced blood being taken as applicable to a blood draw under the Implied Consent policy where there are no threats.
The Bailey case is on point and does limit the application of the Implied Consent policy IN GEORGIA. The ruling does not have any effect in any other state unless a judge in that state makes a similar ruling and starts the appellate process rolling in that state.
When/If the Bailey case goes before the US Supreme Court, then the decision rendered will be the law of the land regarding those limitations and those interpretations of exigent circumstances. Till then... Utah has a law in place that is valid and until challenged, is enforceable. IMO

SSgt Rob Millard - Those cases absolutely were to do with implied consent. I would suggest at this point you should look around at the articles and analyses by legal professionals of this situation and you will see that they are all are saying the same thing Capt Gregory Prickett and I are saying. At some point you have to decide if all these legal professionals are wrong and you are right or if perhaps it is you that doesn't understand the legal implications of these cases (in the interests of full disclosure I am not such a legal professional, but Gregory certainly is).

Here are a few examples:
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/salt-lake-nurse-arrest-video/
https://lawnewz.com/legal-analysis/why-police-cant-just-take-someones-blood-while-theyre-unconscious/

As Gregory also predicted there is now a criminal investigation into the actions of the officers in question called for by the DA.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/01/salt-lake-city-police-apologize-for-officer-handcuffing-nurse-who-refused-blood-draw-of-unconscious-patient/

I don't know how to explain the legal principles in any other way to you at this point. You are quickly running into the proposition that every professional in the legal field who has opined on this is wrong on the legal principles at play and you, a non legal professional, are the one who is right.

SPC Kevin Ford - Kevin, this is the last time that I will speak of this matter. I will only say one last thing. This was a debate! I remained civil and stated my opinion hoping for a heated yet friendly discourse. In return, Captain Prickett was the ONLY person who attacked my points and not my person. We had an intellectual, and at some times heated debate. In contrast, the rest of you have attacked my qualifications to argue the counter to your opinions and used Captain Prickett's qualifications as some type of pulpit you can stand on to attack my dissenting opinion. Time will determine which side of this debate was correct. I will offend you no more. Let it die!

SSgt Rob Millard - Fair enough. Having said that I don't believe I have never attached you personally. At best I questioned your qualifications in light of the fact that your argument runs counter to all expert public analysis in the area brought to the discussion and that should perhaps give you reason to reexamine your position. If you think I attacked you personally I sincerely apologize.

Deprivation of civil rights under color of law is a major crime and becomes even more so when ANY violence is used.

1stSgt Nelson Kerr - Here's what the U S Code says about it.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

CW3 Harvey K. - That would seen to apply here

SSgt Rob Millard - As Capt Gregory Prickett has already noted that law was struck down by the Supreme Court. The problem is we have some people being police officers who shouldn't be police officers. Those who think they are above the law and don't care about the rights of others.

No. That isn't a decision made without a complete investigation.

CPT (Join to see) - I think they made their decision on this case. He was fired from not only his job as a cop but also as a paramedic.

Always great to know the outcome. Thanks!