Officer's response to 911 call that wasn't made.
- Thread starter CheyennePilot
- Start date
- Status
I have tried not to reply on this one, but I just have to give my side.
As far as 911 hangups, every department has a different policy on how to handle them. Our's is as follows: Dispatch receives a 911 hangup, they send a primary and a backup unit to the address that shows up on the screen or the general area to BOLO if the call was made from a cell phone, they then call the number the hangup came from, they then tell the units if contact was made or if there is static on the line or if they get an answering machine, if contact is made they inform the responding units that the person advised it was accidental or child playing on the phone or if the person sounded suspicious during the conversation or some other situation (fight, medical problem, etc.), at which point both units continue to the address to make contact with the occupants to check thier welfare. The units then report if there is a disturbance or if if was accidental, etc.
To answer the question of how do the LEO'S respond to these kind of calls, I can only tell you how I handle them.
When I arrive I shine every window or door on the front of the house where a threat could present itself. I then knock on the door and step off the porch or at least out of the line of sight of the door or any windows. When someone comes to the door, I state my name and department name and tell them that we have received a 911 hangup from thier address. If they say everything is fine I ask to see ALL adults in the house, after which if they also say everything is fine, I appoligize for disturbing them and I get in my car and leave. Unless I see obviouse signs of a disturbance or the person is hostile or evasive when I make contact. At which point I will investigate further, that could involve one-on-one interviews with every adult or even entering the home if I have PROBABLE CAUSE to do so.
For the people that just hate police and think we have no business any where near your home, here is a little senario for you to think on.
Let's say your sitting there posting away at your computer about how prepared you are to fight of any threat to you or your family. You have just ordered a pizza that should be here any minute, or you have a friend coming over to watch the game with you. You hear a knock at the door, and I know this would never REALLY happen to anyone as prepared as you, but you go to the door without your arsenal at the ready. As soon as you open the door three men in ski masks with guns over power you and tie you up. Your wife, hearing the comotion, opens the kitchen door, screams when she sees what is happening and runs to the phone. She manages to dial 911 before one of the robbers can grad her and hang up the phone. At which point she is also tied up. So know you are both sitting the tied up with duct tape over you mouth. When suddenly there is a knock at the door. The robbers take off there masks, two of them sit on the couch while the third answers the door. He talks to the officer, tells him everything is fine in the house, it had to be a mistake for him to have to come out here to waste his time. Ever though the man is noticably nervice and sweating when the house is cool, the officer leaves. Now you are screwed, I mean you saw there faces right? Do you like the way this is going to end or would you have rather had the officer investigate a little further?
Guys and gals, we as officers are not out here to infrindge on you rights or take everything you have away as many of you believe. We are after all, people too. We go with what we see and feel, much like the rest of the human race. If I come to you house on a call and you tell me I cannot come in when ther are signs that someone in the house is in need of help, I am going to do what I have to do AT THAT TIME and worry about civil lawsuites later. If I enter a home without a warrant to help a woman who was just beaten by her husband and I save her, I would welcome the lawsuite.
This is the most I have ever posted, my hands hurt, I am going to bed.
Hug a COP
As far as 911 hangups, every department has a different policy on how to handle them. Our's is as follows: Dispatch receives a 911 hangup, they send a primary and a backup unit to the address that shows up on the screen or the general area to BOLO if the call was made from a cell phone, they then call the number the hangup came from, they then tell the units if contact was made or if there is static on the line or if they get an answering machine, if contact is made they inform the responding units that the person advised it was accidental or child playing on the phone or if the person sounded suspicious during the conversation or some other situation (fight, medical problem, etc.), at which point both units continue to the address to make contact with the occupants to check thier welfare. The units then report if there is a disturbance or if if was accidental, etc.
To answer the question of how do the LEO'S respond to these kind of calls, I can only tell you how I handle them.
When I arrive I shine every window or door on the front of the house where a threat could present itself. I then knock on the door and step off the porch or at least out of the line of sight of the door or any windows. When someone comes to the door, I state my name and department name and tell them that we have received a 911 hangup from thier address. If they say everything is fine I ask to see ALL adults in the house, after which if they also say everything is fine, I appoligize for disturbing them and I get in my car and leave. Unless I see obviouse signs of a disturbance or the person is hostile or evasive when I make contact. At which point I will investigate further, that could involve one-on-one interviews with every adult or even entering the home if I have PROBABLE CAUSE to do so.
For the people that just hate police and think we have no business any where near your home, here is a little senario for you to think on.
Let's say your sitting there posting away at your computer about how prepared you are to fight of any threat to you or your family. You have just ordered a pizza that should be here any minute, or you have a friend coming over to watch the game with you. You hear a knock at the door, and I know this would never REALLY happen to anyone as prepared as you, but you go to the door without your arsenal at the ready. As soon as you open the door three men in ski masks with guns over power you and tie you up. Your wife, hearing the comotion, opens the kitchen door, screams when she sees what is happening and runs to the phone. She manages to dial 911 before one of the robbers can grad her and hang up the phone. At which point she is also tied up. So know you are both sitting the tied up with duct tape over you mouth. When suddenly there is a knock at the door. The robbers take off there masks, two of them sit on the couch while the third answers the door. He talks to the officer, tells him everything is fine in the house, it had to be a mistake for him to have to come out here to waste his time. Ever though the man is noticably nervice and sweating when the house is cool, the officer leaves. Now you are screwed, I mean you saw there faces right? Do you like the way this is going to end or would you have rather had the officer investigate a little further?
Guys and gals, we as officers are not out here to infrindge on you rights or take everything you have away as many of you believe. We are after all, people too. We go with what we see and feel, much like the rest of the human race. If I come to you house on a call and you tell me I cannot come in when ther are signs that someone in the house is in need of help, I am going to do what I have to do AT THAT TIME and worry about civil lawsuites later. If I enter a home without a warrant to help a woman who was just beaten by her husband and I save her, I would welcome the lawsuite.
This is the most I have ever posted, my hands hurt, I am going to bed.
Hug a COP
I remember when I was a senior in high school I noticed that there was a card from a detective in the crack between my door and the wall. I didn't really think much of it until I received a call from this detective a few days later saying "Did you get my card? Why haven't you called?" In a fairly rude tone. I politely said I didn't receive a request to call anyone, there was just a random card placed that could have come from anywhere or anyone (I thought it was a joke when I initially saw the card myself).
I agreed to come down to the station. When I recognized the detective my 1st BS detector went off (see below). I proceeded to defend myself from a barage of questions that were basically accusing me of having thrown objects (water balloons) that caused several hundred dollars worth of damage (2nd BS detector went off) from my vehicle (that was not running, broken down in the garage, 3rd BS detector). I asked the officer what time and date this report came from and if they had my plate number. He told me the time and date and when he said he had my plate number I knew it was BS becuase my Jeep was totally out of commission weeks before that date and after as well, so how did the Det. get my plates?
My very old grouchy next door neighbor (about in his 60-70's) that my family has had multiple, ridiculous problems with, is good friends with not only the judge (who is in his 60-70's also) in our town but also with this detective (also 60-70's) (I've seen them together multiple occasions, including both of them looking at my jeep in the driveway when I was working on it).
After these questions I said I would produce witnesses that had helped me tow my jeep at the times in question as well as receipts for parts I had ordered previously to replace the broken parts on my Jeep. I told him there was NO WAY for him to get my lic plate number unless it was some other occasion (not mentioning that I had seen him with my neighbor). He tried to clammor on about my rebutals, trailed off and eventually shut up.
The det. was just so pompous, entitled and condescending toward me. If this guy knew that I was currently finishing my associate degree in high school, busy taking 27 credit hours at the local University ext, working on my Eagle Scout, playing sports, sang in choir, attended church, just knew me personally even a little bit instead of plotting against me with my idiotic neighbor, I would've been the last of his worries.
That was a very frustrating experience. Maybe it was all accident, maybe it wasn't but it still makes me suspicious sometimes. I have family in law enforcement and I have a lot of respect for LEO and military, they deal with stuff almost NO ONE wants to deal with, but all humans are falable sometimes.
I agreed to come down to the station. When I recognized the detective my 1st BS detector went off (see below). I proceeded to defend myself from a barage of questions that were basically accusing me of having thrown objects (water balloons) that caused several hundred dollars worth of damage (2nd BS detector went off) from my vehicle (that was not running, broken down in the garage, 3rd BS detector). I asked the officer what time and date this report came from and if they had my plate number. He told me the time and date and when he said he had my plate number I knew it was BS becuase my Jeep was totally out of commission weeks before that date and after as well, so how did the Det. get my plates?
My very old grouchy next door neighbor (about in his 60-70's) that my family has had multiple, ridiculous problems with, is good friends with not only the judge (who is in his 60-70's also) in our town but also with this detective (also 60-70's) (I've seen them together multiple occasions, including both of them looking at my jeep in the driveway when I was working on it).
After these questions I said I would produce witnesses that had helped me tow my jeep at the times in question as well as receipts for parts I had ordered previously to replace the broken parts on my Jeep. I told him there was NO WAY for him to get my lic plate number unless it was some other occasion (not mentioning that I had seen him with my neighbor). He tried to clammor on about my rebutals, trailed off and eventually shut up.
The det. was just so pompous, entitled and condescending toward me. If this guy knew that I was currently finishing my associate degree in high school, busy taking 27 credit hours at the local University ext, working on my Eagle Scout, playing sports, sang in choir, attended church, just knew me personally even a little bit instead of plotting against me with my idiotic neighbor, I would've been the last of his worries.
That was a very frustrating experience. Maybe it was all accident, maybe it wasn't but it still makes me suspicious sometimes. I have family in law enforcement and I have a lot of respect for LEO and military, they deal with stuff almost NO ONE wants to deal with, but all humans are falable sometimes.
One of Many
Member
Sounds like the Constitution is no longer worth the material it was written on. The SC gives police the power to use "exigent circumstances" to invade and search a persons home without a warrant, with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, based solely on another police officers statement that they heard something (or did not hear something) on a telephone system that is known to be subject to equipment failures. A homeowner that resists being subjected to this interrogation and search is then arrested for 'obstructing' the performance of an officers 'legal' duties. You can't get much closer to a police state than this.
The same SC says that the police have no legal obligation to protect any individual from violent attack, but says the police can enter a persons home to prevent a possible 'domestic violence' situation; which is it - no individual protection, or forced entry into a home to prevent DV based on a faulty phone system? These two concepts are diametrically opposed; they are mutually exclusive.
The same SC says that the police have no legal obligation to protect any individual from violent attack, but says the police can enter a persons home to prevent a possible 'domestic violence' situation; which is it - no individual protection, or forced entry into a home to prevent DV based on a faulty phone system? These two concepts are diametrically opposed; they are mutually exclusive.
Here is another consideration, too....
Since the "internet phones" are becoming popular, also known as Voice Over I.P., there is the issue of Caller ID not being correct. It seems that it is very easy to 'spoof' ANY phone number with VOIP systems.
I had a call come in recently on my Caller ID that showed MY OWN phone number as the originating number...no way I called myself at home from home.
Since the "internet phones" are becoming popular, also known as Voice Over I.P., there is the issue of Caller ID not being correct. It seems that it is very easy to 'spoof' ANY phone number with VOIP systems.
I had a call come in recently on my Caller ID that showed MY OWN phone number as the originating number...no way I called myself at home from home.
They are never your friend when acting in an official capacity, but they are usually not your enemy. It may sound like semantic game, but that's the way it is.
It is up to you to learn to say NO when they ask something of you. Or you can just roll over and do anything they want. There really is no middle ground.
The real problem is that a there is no means by which these incidents can be reviewed by an independent entity and appropriate disciplinary action taken if warranted. At present, virtually all LE agencies investigate complaints against themselves. It is very difficult for any entity made up of human beings to investigate itself in a fair and open means. It may happen in some departments, but I do not believe that is the norm.
If there was some means by which police conduct was subject to some open and unbiased judgment, police conduct would probably improve. OTOH, most of the problems with LE misconduct exist in places like Chicago where the whole system is so corrupt that it is unlikely that any kind of fair system could even be instituted.
Consider yourself fortunate if you live in an area where police mostly behave themselves. Consider moving if you live in places like Chicago where the whole system is completely dysfunctional.
Sorry, that's just wacky thinking in my book. Whenever someone says, "There really is no middle ground!", they are almost always hiding some irrationality under and absolutist position.
The key to understanding the fundamental lack of rational thought in this post is the phrase, "do anything they want."
I can chose to permit and object to certain kinds of searches when asked for permission w/o a warrant, and depending on circumstances. There are some things to which I would object without a warrant, and other things to which I would not object without a warrant. For example let's propose four different requests:
- We've a 911 call from this house, reporting screaming and shouting. May we check all of the rooms in the house?
- Someone shot up your neighbor's garage - may we have your pistol for ballistics testing?
- Can you give us a list of all of the political donations you've made in the last 4 years?
- A neighbor of yours reported seeing someone going in a window at the rear of your house. May we sweep the rooms?
I would personally grant permission for #1, #2, and #4. I would ask for a warrant for #3. #3 and #4 actually fit pretty closely (I think) the definition of exigent circumstance I found on wikipedia:
You may disagree with my list. That's your privilege - that's your choice. But the very fact that I can (and would) object to #3 demonstrates that my only two choices are not "to say NO when they ask something of you" or "roll over and allow them to do anything".
The reality is that if I deny permission and they search anyway, I will wait for my day in court. Attempting to win a battle with police forces "on the street" seems like a really poor strategy to me. I don't have the weapons/tactics to win, and especially at home, I have a wife and kids. I don't see myself engaging in a gun battle with with my wife and kids in the line of fire.
Mike
opd743,
Excellent post.
***
A few years back, we had a certain red-headed five-year-old who was pure bottled trouble. He wasn't ... bad ... exactly. He just had a strong drive to know what would happen if ____.
My husband and I were in the living room, and the kids were playing upstairs, when the phone rang. It was the 911 operator, calling to check on us because they'd just had a hang up call from our house.
Five kids in the house, and husband and I looked at each other and knew instantly which kid was the culprit.
When deputy arrived, husband and I met him on the porch & explained situation. Said we'd rather not do this again, so if he could (pretty please) give the lecture to the kid we'd appreciate it. Deputy said, "How many kids you got here?"
"Umm, five."
"Bring 'em all down, I'd like to talk to all of them. Sometimes this is contagious." (Heh, and a good way of checking that everyone is okay, I suspect.)
Out troop the kids. Deputy spots Middle Son, the redhead. "You're the one who called, aren't you?" Kid hangs head. Deputy gives pretty good talking-to, then invites kids to check out patrol car.
Two weeks later, same kid did same thing again, no husband around this time. Well, #%^&%!! (He must take after husband's side; I'm sure I was never that ornery.)
Asked why he did that, his response was, "I liked the guy who came out and wanted to talk to him again."
So much for the Officer Friendly model. :banghead:
pax
The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a remarkable Christian forbearance among men. -- Ambrose Bierce
Excellent post.
***
A few years back, we had a certain red-headed five-year-old who was pure bottled trouble. He wasn't ... bad ... exactly. He just had a strong drive to know what would happen if ____.
My husband and I were in the living room, and the kids were playing upstairs, when the phone rang. It was the 911 operator, calling to check on us because they'd just had a hang up call from our house.
Five kids in the house, and husband and I looked at each other and knew instantly which kid was the culprit.
When deputy arrived, husband and I met him on the porch & explained situation. Said we'd rather not do this again, so if he could (pretty please) give the lecture to the kid we'd appreciate it. Deputy said, "How many kids you got here?"
"Umm, five."
"Bring 'em all down, I'd like to talk to all of them. Sometimes this is contagious." (Heh, and a good way of checking that everyone is okay, I suspect.)
Out troop the kids. Deputy spots Middle Son, the redhead. "You're the one who called, aren't you?" Kid hangs head. Deputy gives pretty good talking-to, then invites kids to check out patrol car.
Two weeks later, same kid did same thing again, no husband around this time. Well, #%^&%!! (He must take after husband's side; I'm sure I was never that ornery.)
Asked why he did that, his response was, "I liked the guy who came out and wanted to talk to him again."
So much for the Officer Friendly model. :banghead:
pax
The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a remarkable Christian forbearance among men. -- Ambrose Bierce
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
For network-based E-911 solutions (Triangulation) the revised FCC rules call for carriers to achieve 100-m accuracy for 67% of mobile emergency calls and 300-m accuracy for 95% of all of these calls.
Carriers going the handset route (GPS) must demonstrate an accuracy of 50 m for 67% of its emergency calls and 150 m for 95% of those calls.
Many of the carriers that chose the handset method are having trouble because, if you have any experience with handheld GPS systems, you know how hard it is to a) "see" the satellites from indoors and b) get a location in the first place. Cold start GPS locations can take from 10 to 15 minutes in some cases.
GPS can be more accurate but has signal issues with the satellites.
By the end of 2005 carriers were supposed to be done with this, but the FCC granted extensions to several since the technology just isn't there yet at a cost that consumers are willing to bear.
Are they telling the truth? If you are in the house, you would probably know if there was any screaming or shouting.
No! Get a lawyer and say no more.
This kind of question is becoming pretty common these days.
Are they telling the truth? Was the neighbor telling the truth? I might invite them to go around back and take a look.
Well if it was an honest mistake I don't see what the issue really is.
I generally am a little uncomfortable with cops I don't know being around too but look at their point of view.
They got a report of a 911 hang up to check out. They come to your house and see you and your wife and dog, so they probably aren't thinking that there is a crazed gunman in the back room. But if you were being held hostage how would you act? What if there is a gunman in another room holding your ten year old son?
They got a report and they showed up.
At least they showed up.
I generally am a little uncomfortable with cops I don't know being around too but look at their point of view.
They got a report of a 911 hang up to check out. They come to your house and see you and your wife and dog, so they probably aren't thinking that there is a crazed gunman in the back room. But if you were being held hostage how would you act? What if there is a gunman in another room holding your ten year old son?
They got a report and they showed up.
At least they showed up.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Ilbob,
I agree entirely,
Some areas have 'civilian review boards', however, most have members appointed by the chief of police. Purely cosmetic, most of the 'cop bashing' LEO's complain about so much is that the police will defend even the most marginal judgment call by another LEO.
That said, the policeman involved could very well have been most professional and displayed the utmost courtesy. Asking to search the house with only the strength of an alledged 911 call shifts just a bit too close to the dark side for my taste. Maybe he had reason, I don't know I wasn't there. I will not condemn him for it but would be curious of his past encounters.
Selena
I agree entirely,
Some areas have 'civilian review boards', however, most have members appointed by the chief of police. Purely cosmetic, most of the 'cop bashing' LEO's complain about so much is that the police will defend even the most marginal judgment call by another LEO.
That said, the policeman involved could very well have been most professional and displayed the utmost courtesy. Asking to search the house with only the strength of an alledged 911 call shifts just a bit too close to the dark side for my taste. Maybe he had reason, I don't know I wasn't there. I will not condemn him for it but would be curious of his past encounters.
Selena
I was reading on second city cop blog the other day. Some of the posters are furious that police involved shootings are no longer being investigated by detectives but by some other entity. A number of posters kept saying things like the detectives were supposed to help them come up with a good story and such. I felt the need to point out that the detectives should be trying to find out what really happened, not trying to come up with a story that made the shooter look better. Most of the posters did not seem to feel that way at all.
The point of my post was not to convince you that my choices were correct.
You had said:
My argument is that there is a middle ground - I can object to some searches and give permission to others.
You may object to the choices I make, but do you agree that there is a middle ground in the sense that I can object to some searches, and object to others?
Mike
In my county the SA has the grand jury review any police involved shooting. Its a good step, but you still have an entity investigating itself.
There was a recent cop involved shooting in Rockford where the cops killed an 80 YO armed robbery victim. The cops spent a lot of time pointing out the minor gambling convictions of the victim, and that the armed robbery was of a low stakes poker game (I think the robbery netted less then $100, which was casually mentioned toward the end of the story).
The guy who is dead cannot talk for himself, and the cops have no incentive to tell the truth if it is not in their favor. So, who knows what happened. The only other people present were the robbers (three of them apparently) and they are not real credible. So one is left with the unsatisfying situation of never really knowing what actually happened.
There is no middle ground once you let them in. They can go fishing for anything at that point. The choice is either let them in or not. There is no middle ground, because you can't say you can come in and only do X, but not Y and Z.
Deanimator
Member
EVERYBODY should read that blog at least once.
I'm especially fascinated by the repeated defenses of the cop who stomped on the barmaid's head because she wouldn't serve him more alcohol after he got drunk, then threatened to plant drugs on her and the bar owner if she didn't drop the charges against him.
SCC is moderated too, and the mod periodically posts that he does not allow some posts. I am sometimes amazed at some of the things he does allow, since they make Chicago cops look like 2 bit thugs pretty regularly. Usually some other cop will tell off the thuggish ones. Of course, there is no way to know if anyone is really who they say they are on an anonymous blog. I do give SCC a lot of credit for not deleting the posts that reflect poorly on Chicago coppers, and a fair number of their own posts make them look really bad. I'm sure a lot of it is just venting, but some of it approaches criminal.
Many of the cop forums have changed their posting rules so only cops can see the more interesting things, like how to write reports that will sustain arrests as opposed to writing the facts. Officer.com used to have most of that kind of stuff out in the open, now it is hidden. I can see why they would hide it.
Old Dog
Member
I'm amazed this thread is still open.
A thread about police response to an apparent 911 hang-up is an excuse for everyone to jump onboard with comments about how corrupt Chicago PD is? And how LE agencies typically investigate allegations of their own personnels' misconduct?
This is still gun-related? Please.
A thread about police response to an apparent 911 hang-up is an excuse for everyone to jump onboard with comments about how corrupt Chicago PD is? And how LE agencies typically investigate allegations of their own personnels' misconduct?
This is still gun-related? Please.
Are these comments truly relevent to gun-related general discussion? Certain members seem to really enjoy posting comments pertaining to LEO misconduct in almost every type of thread. Does this really further the purpose of RKBA discussion?
:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked