RE: 911:: CAD Clearance Codes

[Guest guest]

Here are some of the CADS clearing codes we use in Portsmouth:

CW - Complied with

CD - Cleared by dispatch

DC - Duplicate call

SI - Summons issued

FI - Field interview

AC - Advice given/will comply

AM - Arrest made

WG - Warning given

WA - Warrants advised

VT - Vehicle towed

PT - Parking ticket

RT - Report taken

AI - Accident investigated

NR - No report/action taken

YC - Youth card

UO - Uncleared by officer

TT - Turned over to....

CC - Cleared by complainant

For example, an officer would pull a traffic stop & would clear it " 10-8 two

summons issued. " We would then type in " CL " , then enter, then " SI " , then

enter, then " SI " again, then enter twice.

If I can be of more assistance, please let me know.

" In God we trust....all others check thru NCIC! "

L. Dunham

a911opr8r@...

Portsmouth P.D.

Portsmouth, VA

[Guest guest]

Here are some of the CADS clearing codes we use in Portsmouth:

CW - Complied with

CD - Cleared by dispatch

DC - Duplicate call

SI - Summons issued

FI - Field interview

AC - Advice given/will comply

AM - Arrest made

WG - Warning given

WA - Warrants advised

VT - Vehicle towed

PT - Parking ticket

RT - Report taken

AI - Accident investigated

NR - No report/action taken

YC - Youth card

UO - Uncleared by officer

TT - Turned over to....

CC - Cleared by complainant

For example, an officer would pull a traffic stop & would clear it " 10-8 two

summons issued. " We would then type in " CL " , then enter, then " SI " , then

enter, then " SI " again, then enter twice.

If I can be of more assistance, please let me know.

" In God we trust....all others check thru NCIC! "

L. Dunham

a911opr8r@...

Portsmouth P.D.

Portsmouth, VA

[Guest guest]

>Here are some of the CADS clearing codes we use in Portsmouth:

I think this is some of the reason we have trouble keeping people.

There is far too much for us to know, do, learn and take care of.

Where we are supposed to be a " communications " function, many

agencies turn us into a " record keeping " function...

On nearly every one of the codes listed... nothing is of much value

to communications... it's all something that should go on the

officers report.

For instance....

>For example, an officer would pull a traffic stop & would clear it " 10-8 two

summons issued. " We would then type in " CL " , then enter, then " SI " , then

enter, then " SI " again, then enter twice.<

If I have an officer on a traffic stop... I need to know where he/she is.. and

when he/she is 10-8 (in service)... I certainly don't need to know, or care,

if a summons was issued.. and if there were two... I certainly don't need to

be worried with making sure that went on my report twice.

If departments want all this information, put the responsibility where

it belongs.... officers... and records...

This is one of the reasons that I feel 9-1-1 should be an entirely

separate function... not actually affiliated with the departments

they service... and certainly not ran by the " brass " on those departments.

Understand, there needs to be input from the leaders of those

departments... possibly a 9-1-1 board including them, to help

set policy and take care of problems.

But until we become truly a " communications " function, and not

just a place where the powers that be can push off many other

duties... we will continue to have the personnel problems we are

having today.

One way to help solve our personnel problems is to ease some

of the work load.

To do that we need to simplify... not add work... that should be

done by someone else in the first place.

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

> think this is some of the reason we have trouble keeping people.

>There is far too much for us to know, do, learn and take care of.

>Where we are supposed to be a " communications " function, many

<agencies turn us into a " record keeping " function...

Unfortunately, sometimes there is no difference between " record keeping "

functions and " documentation " functions! I hope you will agree that the

time to document something is just as it has happened, so that it is

freshest in our collective minds. Along with communications there has to

be a certain amount of record keeping, its just the nature of the beast.

Nick Wagner

Senior Communications Supervisor

Cortland Co. (NY) E9-1-1

Fax:

mailto:nwagner@...

http://www.cortland-co.org

I

[Guest guest]

>Along with communications there has to

be a certain amount of record keeping, its just the nature of the beast

True, but it should be documentation of the " communications "

function.. type of call, assigned, arrived, completed...

Dispatchers in centers all over the country are overwhelmed by a

work load, that in many cases is not necessary....

I don't have a problem with a simple code that indicates that the

call was cleared with a report.. or cleared no report... just don't

have the dispatcher typing the report on the call sheet.. or keeping

records on the number of summons issued...

We will never ease this workload if we continue to be a " catch all "

agency instead of a " communication " agency...

We can't do it all... trying to do it all has caused many of the

problems we face today.

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

Well said, ! We DO use a numeric disposition code to close a call,

which the officer is responsible for providing, but we only put ONE code on

it. The command string is " CO,<seq or unit>,D1 " There are several codes,

but the officers must choose and advise us. It does allow calls to be

sorted by type much easier, so I guess you are right about the records

aspect in that sense. But since it's only 3 or 4 extra keystrokes, I don't

mind too much! :-) But if it were 3 or 4 separate commands, that would be

different. Our d-codes do indicate whether or not a report was written and

if it was forwarded to a detective division, but not how many tickets were

written; we DON'T need to know that nor do we care. And if the d-code is

wrong, that is the officer's responsibility, not mine.

Kim Kinsey

Chattanooga, TN PD/FD

opinions are mine and not my agency's!

home email: kjkinsey@...

work email: kinsey_kim@...

AOL IM or ICQ: CPDKimmieK

Re: 911:: CAD Clearance Codes

>I think this is some of the reason we have trouble keeping people.

>

>There is far too much for us to know, do, learn and take care of.

>

>Where we are supposed to be a " communications " function, many

>agencies turn us into a " record keeping " function...

>

>On nearly every one of the codes listed... nothing is of much value

>to communications... it's all something that should go on the

>officers report.

>

>For instance....

>

>>For example, an officer would pull a traffic stop & would clear it " 10-8

two

>summons issued. " We would then type in " CL " , then enter, then " SI " , then

>enter, then " SI " again, then enter twice.<

>

>If I have an officer on a traffic stop... I need to know where he/she is..

and

>when he/she is 10-8 (in service)... I certainly don't need to know, or

care,

>if a summons was issued.. and if there were two... I certainly don't need

to

>be worried with making sure that went on my report twice.

>

>If departments want all this information, put the responsibility where

>it belongs.... officers... and records...

>

>This is one of the reasons that I feel 9-1-1 should be an entirely

>separate function... not actually affiliated with the departments

>they service... and certainly not ran by the " brass " on those departments.

>

>Understand, there needs to be input from the leaders of those

>departments... possibly a 9-1-1 board including them, to help

>set policy and take care of problems.

>

>But until we become truly a " communications " function, and not

>just a place where the powers that be can push off many other

>duties... we will continue to have the personnel problems we are

>having today.

>

>One way to help solve our personnel problems is to ease some

>of the work load.

>

>To do that we need to simplify... not add work... that should be

>done by someone else in the first place.

>

>Weintraut

>

[Guest guest]

We should have it so easy. Our administration has created a records

keeping monster for dispatch using our cad system. The cad we use has log

lines or comment lines and we are " expected " to fill in certain things.

Example; an officer does a motor vehicle stop. When he/she gives us the

name/DOB we are expected to enter it into the case as well as the disposition

such as clear/warned speed. As some people are big on stats they will go out

and " shoot down " 8 or 10 headlight/tail light out stops. Then instead of

giving us the owners name the next thing we get is " Clear run the plate and

put the owners info in the Q-sheet, it was a warning for a headlight out, "

putting more work on us. However it does have its revenge is mine moments.

One of our more noted officers did this and I merely followed his

instructions. He was upset to find out for the patrol Lt. that he had

stopped last name Credit Corp., first of Toyota Motor.

Al

[Guest guest]

--------------------------------

True, but it should be documentation of the " communications "

function.. type of call, assigned, arrived, completed...

Dispatchers in centers all over the country are overwhelmed by a

work load, that in many cases is not necessary....

I don't have a problem with a simple code that indicates that the

call was cleared with a report.. or cleared no report... just don't

have the dispatcher typing the report on the call sheet.. or keeping

records on the number of summons issued...

---------------------------------

,

I agree with you 100%!! That is how we handle a clearance - there are 7

choices:

Dash 1 - event verified/no report written

Dash 2 - report written/no arrest made

Dash 3 - no report written/citation issued

Dash 4 - report written/arrest made

Dash 5 - event not verified

Dash 6 - event unfounded

Dash 7 - handled by another agency

These are combined with an " event code " - for example:

Let's use the charge of simple assault:

An 0800 is an assault. The type of assault is determined by the type of

assault clearance the officer gives. For example:

0811 is assault on a citizen (not related to the suspect)

0812 is assault on a police officer

0813 is assault on a family member

Examples:

1) An officer goes to a disorderly subject call and gets assaulted in some

way, the officer would arrest the suspect and when he is finished

processing, he would clear it 0812-4 : assault on a police officer, report

written/arrest made.

2) An officer goes to an assault just occurred call and the victim is there

but the aggressor (lets say it's a friend) is not there, the officer would

clear it 0811-2 : assault on a citizen, report written, no arrest made.

3) An officer goes to that same assault just occurred call, and finds that a

crime didn't really occur - maybe more a situation of emotions running high,

that sort of thing, he could clear it 0811-5 : assault on a citizen, event

not verified.

Every crime is broken down that way.

0100 - homicide

all the way up to

5500 - property damage collisions

And each " event code " is broken down into subcategories to be more specific.

Then we have a large group of " miscellaneous " clearances:

2952 - suspicious person/veh/situation

2991 - miscellaneous

2932 - animal complaint

etc

We are not required to be " record keepers " in the way that some of you have

mentioned. If an officer goes on a traffic stop, when he clears he says

" 10-8 " and that's it. When he turns his ticket book into his Sgt they will

know what citations he issued. Our job is to keep track of the officers

location/status/welfare, dispatch them on calls, and handle requests they

have. Thats it. As far as I'm concerned, thats the way it should be. Just my

humble opinion!!

Amy G, PT3

Montomery County PD, MD

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.