Re: 911:: Public in pursuit

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/25/01 1:59:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

nicholson@... writes:

> Does anyone have a policy or suggestion for one on what to do when

> you get a cellular 9-1-1 call from a member of the general public who

> is " following " a reckless, speeding, annoying or other such type

> driver?

Oh I just hate to get those calls..... Q. Citizen in pursuit of a

dangerous driver. While we do not have a written policy,we ALWAYS tell the

driver NOT to pursue the offender. We tell them that IF and I stress IF they

are still behind the vehicle and are going in the same direction anyhow to

keep us abreast of the offenders location. They are told not to chase or in

any way attempt to keep pace with a driver they have just told us is causing

what they feel is an unsafe condition on the roadway. If they have the

registration on the vehicle we offer them the choice of signing a motor

vehicle summons themselves. If our officer can catch the vehicle and they

observe any wrongdoing they will stop the vehicle at which time our caller is

told to pull over with the officer and he can sign a summons right there. If

the driver is not located, the caller still has 30 days to sign a summons for

any violation by going directly to our court office and signing a summons.

The exception is no insurance or leaving the scene of an accident. If memory

serves me, they have up to 6 months to sign on those two violations.

Most callers do not want to sign a complaint and seem to accept the fact that

we will not issue a summons for something we did not witness. I can't wait

to see if/when New Jersey jumps on the bandwagon with New York and outlaws

talking on a cell phone that is not hands free while driving. Maybe then we

can ask the callers to pull over with the officer to sign and receive a

summons at the same time!

I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but in this neck of the

woods our drivers are not the most patient or forgiving. I find most callers

believe the other guy is driving dangerously simply because they managed to

get in front of them! In certain parts of this state driving is very similar

to hand to hand combat and can be compared to the bumper car ride everyone is

familiar to at your local county fair. Not a pretty picture. Perhaps it

goes towards explaining why we enjoy the one of the highest auto insurance

rates in the nation.

While we always take these calls seriously and do dispatch area cars to

attempt to locate the vehicles reported to be driving dangerously, we could

certainly live without most of the baseless calls we get.

Patty

BTPD NJ

[Guest guest]

--- Mike Nicholson wrote:

>

> Does anyone have a policy or suggestion for one on

> what to do when

> you get a cellular 9-1-1 call from a member of the

> general public who

> is " following " a reckless, speeding, annoying or

> other such type

> driver?

I don't believe we have a set policy, but generally we

tell them to stop following them. Sometimes, if what

the person is doing is really bad, or has committed a

hit and run, we will keep with them as they follow the

person and get an officer out. The reason we tell

them to stop following most of the time is that,

unless the caller wants to file a complaint, we don't

dispatch an officer. We just broadcast the

information to the side of town it occurred in.

Unless, of course, it is something particularaly bad

(like driving the wrong way--but I hope no one is

following then!!)

Hope this helps.

=====

Kim

I make a difference

Tulsa, OK

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

At 18:58 11/25/2001 +0000, Mike Nicholson wrote:

>Hi,

> If I have not mentioned it before, in my humble opinion cell phones

>in cars are a bad idea. With that off my chest on to the question.

It's not that they're in cars (after all, that's where they were FIRST in

the late 80's - and they made sense then, when there were only a few users

and they reported truly obvious accidents and things) but that they have

proliferated and idjits carry them. And report stuff.

> Does anyone have a policy or suggestion for one on what to do when

>you get a cellular 9-1-1 call from a member of the general public who

>is " following " a reckless, speeding, annoying or other such type

>driver?

Yup, we do, because we've been handling these types of calls for years and

years.

>As we have just begun to discover the joy of cellular 9-1-1

>here this did not really come up in the past. As we have more sites

>turned on by more companies the flow has begun. I have had 2 already

>today.

Please forgive my slightly hysterical snicker at " 2 already today. " Trust

me, you'll get better at it. And you'll appreciate the " good " RPs and

curse (on mute) the lousy ones. Especially the lousy ones that want to

play at Posse Comitatus and participate by following such impaired drivers.

>

> Do you tell them not to follow the " offender " ? Do you ask them to

>stop to speak to an Officer? Do you take basic information and hang

>up? What do you think?

Statewide department policy (that is, all over the state for MY department,

not that every agency in the state does this) is to take the information

and advise the caller NOT to follow, thank you very much. If the caller

provides good information and HAPPENS to be traveling in the same direction

(not so much following as going the same way at the same time) we may ask

them to keep their cell phones on in case we need updated information. We

also request that callers call us back if the impaired driver changes

directions, or if something " else " happens " before we get into position. "

Because, of course, many such reports are simply broadcast and we don't

have units in position.

If an officer request us to call back an RP (because they have gotten close

enough to the location provided and are maneuvering into traffic to zero in

on the vehicle description), then we do so. We constantly urge the caller

to stay back, stay safe, just give us location and lane change information,

etc.

If an enforcement stop is made, we ask the officers if they need contact

with the caller. If so, we'll advise 'em to pull in behind the stop, some

distance back, and stay in the car until the officer approaches.

<snip>

> And I can't help but think the Dispatcher

>would be blamed. Probably even if they said not to follow but stayed

>on the phone.

<snip>

If we have an insistent caller, we DO stay on the phone with them. I mean,

the kind that SAYS s/he intends to follow 'em until they're stopped. If

they are just reporting it and we've instructed them, per policy, NOT to

follow, we don't stay on the phone, as that encourages 'em. " Thank you

very much, sir or ma'am, we'll broadcast the update. Do NOT follow the

drunk/reckless driver - it isn't safe! " But if the caller indicates an

intention to stay " in the chase " then we'll stay on the phone to provide

updates to the officers AND to continue to exhort them to stop following.

It's simply not safe for them.

Yes, we do have insistent callers. Some of them do put themselves in

danger. (One memorable incident involved an off-duty cop's report and

high-speed chase of a NON-INJURY hit-and-run suspect, with a very good

description including the suspect vehicle license plate. The pursuing

off-duty cop had his wife use the phone while he chased the bad guy into

opposite lanes, around other vehicles, down farm roads... until the

terrified suspect crashed. And died.) But the great majority of them just

report the situation and accept our instructions (at least they hang up and

we hope they do, anyway). It is quite common to receive multiple reports

from the same caller, who gets more and more frustrated that we're not

right there, right now, while the caller has traveled for miles behind the

impaired driver.

Despite the policy, our officers often ASK if we have " a follower. " No,

not unless we said so in the broadcast.... but again, the folks who

provide good information are asked to keep their cell phones on, so we can

call 'em back if the officer so requests.

But the policy is to get as much good information as possible, advise the

caller not to follow, and broadcast the information, plus any updates as we

get them. I think it's a wise one.

Happy to be here, proud to serve.

Olmstead

Communications Supervisor

~on the Central California coastline~

" Not presumed to be an official statement of my employing agency. "

Home E-mail: mailto:gryeyes@...

http://www.gryeyes.com/

[Guest guest]

Our county attorney directed my boss (a while back, and informally, as I

understand it)

that they will not allow a complainant to sign complaints on a reckless

driver unless they

PERSONALLY know who he/she is; having the license plate is not good enough.

So you don't know the person, tough luck (if we don't see them.)

Chris

Re: 911:: " Public in pursuit "

.. If they have the

> registration on the vehicle we offer them the choice of signing a motor

> vehicle summons themselves. If our officer can catch the vehicle and they

> observe any wrongdoing they will stop the vehicle at which time our caller

is

> told to pull over with the officer and he can sign a summons right there.

If

> the driver is not located, the caller still has 30 days to sign a summons

for

> any violation by going directly to our court office and signing a summons.

> The exception is no insurance or leaving the scene of an accident. If

memory

> serves me, they have up to 6 months to sign on those two violations.

<snip>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/26/01 9:49:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

cklaene1@... writes:

> Our county attorney directed my boss (a while back, and informally, as I

> understand it)

> that they will not allow a complainant to sign complaints on a reckless

> driver unless they

> PERSONALLY know who he/she is; having the license plate is not good enough.

> So you don't know the person, tough luck (if we don't see them.)

>

We allow them to sign a summons, but they still have to be able to identify

the driver in court. We often ask the license plate and a description of who

was driving. If they tell us a male driver and the plate comes back

registered to a female or if they tell us its a teen and the registered owner

is an elderly person we will tell them they can't sign a complaint unless

they can IDENTIFY the driver. We will NOT send an officer or call the owner

to find out who might have been driving the car at that particular time.

Most of our callers fade away very, very quickly when they learn that they

are signing the complaint and they alone will be going to court to plead

their case. Our only involvement is that the officer must sign the hard copy

of the ticket in NJ. We then bow gracefully out of the issue never to be

heard from again.

I'm often surprised at the callers that want us to call and yell at the

driver for whatever the caller feels that they did that was illegal or

dangerous. We outright refuse to get involved in those calls. They either

sign a complaint or they just have to forget about the incident. As I said,

most go away quietly....

Patty

BTPD NJ

>

>

[Guest guest]

Here is a recommended policy for the State of Michigan:

Policy C: Procedures for Cellular Telephone Callers Reporting an Incident

in Progress

approved by ETSC on 2/2/1996

Background:

An increasing number of calls for service are from persons on mobile

telephones. Because of their mobility, these people are often witnessing

events as they happen, and sometimes they follow suspects themselves.

Reporting an event in progress is useful for law enforcement. However, a

citizen following a suspect is subjected to potential danger. If the PSAP

encourages this behavior, the PSAP could become liable for personal injuries

or damage to property which result.

Therefore, the PSAP should warn a citizen not to attempt to chase a suspect.

If a caller fails to heed the warning and continues to follow a suspect, the

PSAP has a responsibility to take and use the information in the best way it

can.

The following policy is suggested to Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs)

when a mobile phone caller reports an incident in progress:

Obtain the caller's name and mobile phone number (in case callback is

necessary).

Get all pertinent information on subject, situation, vehicles, etc.

If caller is following a suspect, give the following warning: " We cannot be

responsible for your safety. We advise you not to follow anyone. We will

take care of the situation. "

Terminate the call if the person stops pursuing the vehicle. Make sure you

have enough information to get back in contact with the caller as a witness,

etc. If the caller indicates he (or she) will continue following the

suspect, get a description of the caller (and vehicle, if applicable) and

notify a supervisor.

It will be the supervisor's decision whether to send the call to dispatch

after checking with the appropriate dispatcher. Factors will include (but

are not limited to) the nature of the call, the number and nature of other

calls, status of available patrol cars, etc.

If the call does not go to a dispatcher, continue to update the supervisor

with the latest information from the caller.

If the call goes to dispatch, the supervisor will assist the dispatcher by

monitoring the call while the dispatcher handles radio traffic. Do not ask

the caller questions which would indicate they are being encouraged to

chase. However, questions for clarification of information or about the

caller's safety may be asked.

All operators should be alerted in case other people attempt to call about

the incident, or in case the call is disconnected and the original caller

calls back. (Mobile calls can often be disconnected accidentally as a

vehicle moves through different areas.)

D. McClure, ENP

CTA Communications, Inc.

nmcclure@...

[Guest guest]

>But the policy is to get as much good information as possible, advise the

caller not to follow, and broadcast the information, plus any updates as we

get them. I think it's a wise one.<

Simple, straightforward AND wise.

Although my department doesn't have this as a written policy, all the

dispatchers

certainly advises mobile callers NOT to follow, and we're even pretty forceful

about... It just doesn't make sense to put other people in danger, over what is

usually a small traffic offense to start with.

And this....

>(One memorable incident involved an off-duty cop's report and

high-speed chase of a NON-INJURY hit-and-run suspect, with a very good

description including the suspect vehicle license plate. The pursuing

off-duty cop had his wife use the phone while he chased the bad guy into

opposite lanes, around other vehicles, down farm roads... until the

terrified suspect crashed. And died.)<

Someone is dead, countless others were put at risk, over a simple, non-injury,

leaving the scene accident.

Sad, unnecessary and stupid.

I certainly hope that there was some legal action, or at least department

action,

taken against this officer. If not... something is wrong...

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

<< If I have not mentioned it before, in my humble opinion cell phones

in cars are a bad idea. >

I totally agree -- there are more calls that would have never happened before

without them.

<<< Does anyone have a policy or suggestion for one on what to do when

you get a cellular 9-1-1 call from a member of the general public who

is " following " a reckless, speeding, annoying or other such type

driver? >>>

Reckless calls are among those that I could have done without at my old job.

We would get at LEAST 300 of them a day -- no lie. And usually it was

someone who was going fasterr or maybe changes lanes a few extra times.

People would dial 911, sit on hold at least 3-5 minutes and start screaming

about a " drunk driver " because the other person didn't drive the way the

caller thought they should. There were a few times I thought the caller was

going to have a stroke. They generally didn't know where they were -- they'd

have the number of the freeway, maybe the direction and half the time the

last exit they passed. They would often describe the driver, generally get

the color of the car, seldom the make and model and even less seldom the

plate. They always knew the speed of the other car and when they would admit

to " having " to go 95 to catch up and you suggested they might want to slow

down for their own safety they always knew better than you what was

safe......I even had a race car driver call one time and he assured me he

knew how to drive safely at high speeds. By time you got the basic

information it was now at least 5 minutes since they saw the car.

The radios at my old job didn't put a real high priority on reckless drivers

and at least 25% of the time filed them without putting them out because of

teh time element.

If they did put it out, at least half the time the officers never

acknowledged the broadcast.

if they did acknowledge only about 5% of the time were they in postiion and

about 3% of the time try to do somethign about it. It gets very old and

demoralzign when you take call after call after call like this knowing

nothing is going to be done and you can't tell the caller.

Shortly before I left there was one such call.....this " gentleman " called 3

times in about 15 minutes......about the same car he was following and

determined the other driver was going to get arrested. The first two times

teh radio put it out. I was the unfortunate person to get him the third time

when he was fit to be tied because he hadn't even seen an officer yet. Rush

hour on a weekend they are generally majorly swamped with other things like

accidents. He told me " someone was going to get it " and that someone was

going to get killed......I told the radio that, sent it over after unfiling

the log yet again.....the radio filed it and never put it out again.....the

guy was pissed. I don't know if it would have helped to say " thanks, no one

will do anything about it. "

The policy as I was told is to get the type code, last location, the callers

name, phone number, vehicle color, make, model and plate and then get the

caller off the line. I can't tell you how many co-workers would stay on the

line with callers and never had anything said to them.

If they insisted on staying on and you couldn't get them to hang up AND

there was a unit in postiion (about 10 calls out of those 300 a day) you were

supposed to put it to the radio backup position because they could hear both

the caller and the radio and the officer. I routinely did this......I got in

trouble for not doing it when I first started out. I repeatedly saw other

co-workers continue handling the call adn never had a word said about it.

There's a big difference between a follower at 70 plus miles an hour on a

freeway and at 30 miles an hour on a city street. While neither is safe

there is presumably more danger at a high speed.

There were many many times one caller would be with one call taker on a

reckless and lo and behold the other car was also on the phone with another

call taker about the first caller. In an agency that has between 15-25

people answering phones from 10:00 a.m. till 1530 and then goes down to 5-7

caller takers from 1530 - 2000 (yeah, 5 people with at time 30 calls in cue

-- go figure) you don't want half your lines tied up with one person

following another.

I've had local agencies ask why the old agency didn't keep callers on the

line when they do -- the local agency does. When you take a look at the

speeds it makes sense not to keep callers on the line.

<<

And they will increase as the holidays get closer.

< And I can't help but think the Dispatcher would be blamed. Probably even

if they said not to follow but stayed on the phone. >

Of course! You get all the information, you get it broadcast and the officer

doesn't go -- its the dispatchers fault.