Re: 911:: Welfare Checks

January 20, 2002

> <<It's not ok just to " send the unit " ... without really finding out about

> the

> call. >>

>

> And have my socks sued off if I don't send a unit and something is wrong?

> You must be joking.

> Bob

********************************************************************

And you send a car to every single welfare check call?

YOU must be joking.

You can not physically do this. It's not practical nor feasible.

However, realize where and I are coming from. We both work for

state police type outfits with many miles between calls, not a few miles or

blocks. We have far fewer officers to send on " legit " calls much less the

nervous nelly or mental subject calls. Just can't do it.

Iowa State Patrol Communications

Werling NØXZY

scott@...

January 20, 2002

<< We have far fewer officers to send on " legit " calls much less the

nervous nelly or mental subject calls. Just can't do it. >>

I value my current level of living, and would not want to lose it in a

lawsuit due to my inaction to a citizens request.

Besides, not 5 minutes ago, during a short but redfaced discussion with my

supervisor about a like circumstance, I received the " because it's called

customer service and that's all you need to worry about.. " speech.

Bob in Tacoma

Dispatcher

January 20, 2002

> I value my current level of living, and would not want to lose it in a

> lawsuit due to my inaction to a citizens request.

I understand that, Bob. Believe me, neither would I.

> Besides, not 5 minutes ago, during a short but redfaced discussion with my

> supervisor about a like circumstance, I received the " because it's called

> customer service and that's all you need to worry about.. " speech.

And your supervisor sounds like people I am afflictated with or more

precisely, I work for. The job I do is " concept " to them. They have basis

for reality when it comes to my job. I have the most anonymous job in all

of state government. Save for the people that inspect gas pumps for

potential fraud.

That being said, I must stand by my original statement, or the lack of

manpower (or womanpower as the case may be). All the " welfare checks " in

the world would not save some people, conversely, if the welfare check is so

damned important, why are they done on an " as available " basis. FYI, here

in Iowa the state patrol will not do a " welfare check. "

I do have a question for you as a point of interest: If a person calls

requesting a welfare check on an over-due person that is over the legal age

of consent, but has no basis to believe any harm has come to them, how does

your agency justify looking for them? They have broken no laws and can

(pretty much) do what they want when they want.

> Bob in Tacoma

********************************************************************

Iowa State Patrol Communications

Werling NØXZY

scott@...

January 20, 2002

They have basis

> for reality when it comes to my job.

********************************************************************

Should have said, they have NO basis for reality ....sorry about that.

Iowa State Patrol Communications

Werling NØXZY

scott@...

January 20, 2002

In a message dated 1/20/02 10:34:08 AM Mountain Standard Time,

jtkjones@... writes:

<< I'm baffled by the departments that don't send someone. >>

Wow.. I want to work where there are officers who won't ask 50 questions as

to why they are being sent! That's the biggest problem we have with a lot of

calls (depends too on who the dispatcher is and who the officer is) some

will ask you every possible question on the radio why they are going -- some

just go, some dispatchers will ask every possible question - some just get

the basics...

Like today, we were short staffed on the street, had a DV that turned out to

be a possible major drug case, so all 3 of my officers were tied up. I got

the sgt on the radio to let her know i had a business alarm, did she want me

to send the county sheriff? No, she'll do it in a moment. by the time she

went enroute, alarm co had informed me that a key holder was enroute and that

there should be employees on premisis.... what does the sgt ask? Did the

keyholder call the company to verify there are employess? Well how the heck

did I know to ask THAT question of the alarm company? BUT I did inform the

sgt I had attempted to call the business and received a recording telling me

they are closed on Sundays. NO more questions, sgt responded and found the

place locked up tighter then a drum wtih no employees on premisis.

Sometimes I can think ahead of their questions... usually it's " I don't have

that information " is my response to questions.

Kathy

January 20, 2002

It depends MOSTLY on the size and workload of the agency, of course. Many

departments, by sheer necessity, have had to replace that speech with the

" because it's called lack of available resources (i.e. officers) and that's

all you need to worry about. " speech.

Harry

RE: 911:: Welfare Checks

> << We have far fewer officers to send on " legit " calls much less the

> nervous nelly or mental subject calls. Just can't do it. >>

>

> I value my current level of living, and would not want to lose it in a

> lawsuit due to my inaction to a citizens request.

> Besides, not 5 minutes ago, during a short but redfaced discussion with my

> supervisor about a like circumstance, I received the " because it's called

> customer service and that's all you need to worry about.. " speech.

>

> Bob in Tacoma

> Dispatcher

> http://www.lesa.net

January 20, 2002

<<I do have a question for you as a point of interest: If a person calls

requesting a welfare check on an over-due person that is over the legal age

of consent, but has no basis to believe any harm has come to them, how does

your agency justify looking for them? They have broken no laws and can

(pretty much) do what they want when they want>>

I sure wish this radio would stop talking when I'm trying to type.

The fact that a reasonable person is late/overdue/whatever for an

appt/meeting/trip/whatever is reason enuf to send a unit to do a welfare

check at the persons residence according to LESA. I had a comm officer put

in a call once to check on a diabetic person. That was it, a diabetic. I

questioned her about the reason. The reply was, " my god, he's a diabetic " .

With supervisory blessing I sent a unit. Mine is not to reason why.

I agree with you and dubya 100% as far as needing proof positive there is

really an urgent need before sending a unit to check. I would guestimate

that about 30% of the welfare checks we do are warranted and the rest are

veiled requests to have a not-heard-from-in-a-long-time relative call

someone.

Usually I (me, myself) will suggest sending registered letter or telegram

that has to be signed for or nearby relative/neighbor to see if the person

lives at the address when it appears that they just want a phone msg

delivered. I've also said just plain no. " Rules are made to be

broken......until you get caught " . I haven't been caught yet and common

sense is still on my side.

I apologize for trying to play the devil's advocate. And I really really

really apologize for saying the " c " word out loud.

Bob

Dispatcher

January 20, 2002

<< " because it's called lack of available resources (i.e. officers) and

that's

all you need to worry about. " speech>>

We have the resources available to do all that. I still think alot of

things we dispatch are NOT what law enforcement is for. But sucking up for

the tax dollars is all part of customer service, I guess...........sorry,

said it again.

That would be " Bob " , genuflecting to all who pass by

Dispatcher

http://people.we.mediaone.net/jimmiejoe

January 20, 2002

In a message dated 1/20/02 12:50:26 PM Mountain Standard Time,

scott@... writes:

<< If a person calls

requesting a welfare check on an over-due person that is over the legal age

of consent, but has no basis to believe any harm has come to them, how does

your agency justify looking for them? >>

Ohhh in Colorado we can enter into our state computer an ATL (attempt to

locate) so that if the person is contacted by an agency, we know someone is

looking for them. One of our state patrol offices contacted me today about a

woman who was overdue in one of the ski areas (that has been getting a lot of

snow lately) and we have the ability to do a " Query Query " to see if a person

or vehicle has been queried by any agency. This woman had been involved in

an auto accident on last Wednesday. So the department asked we go check on

her, cause there's been no answer on the phone. As I said in an earlier

post, we were busy, short staffed, so I left a message on her answering

machine until I could get an officer to check the house. She called back -

didn't go because of the weather, and hadn't been home much this weekend. She

said she would call the original rp, and I teletyped back to state patrol we

had made phone contact.

Kathy.

January 20, 2002

Bless you my son, I understand from whence thou cometh. ( " Great Chief,

forgive them, for they know not what they require us to do.. " )

hm

RE: 911:: Welfare Checks

> << " because it's called lack of available resources (i.e. officers) and

> that's

> all you need to worry about. " speech>>

>

> We have the resources available to do all that. I still think alot of

> things we dispatch are NOT what law enforcement is for. But sucking up

for

> the tax dollars is all part of customer service, I guess...........sorry,

> said it again.

>

> That would be " Bob " , genuflecting to all who pass by

> Dispatcher

> http://www.lesa.net

>

January 20, 2002

In a message dated 1/20/02 11:11:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

rweintraut@... writes:

> >that often the people calling are

> within 30 minutes of the person they are so, so worried about.

>

> If this is the case, it's not a valid welfare check, without unusual

> circumstances... medical problems... something that would

> indicate an immediate response is necessary.

>

Unfortunately in our department the fact that the caller is just too lazy to

make the effort is a valid reason. Our department seems hell bent on

becoming more of a butler service than a law enforcement agency.

I have no problem assisting someone that is in need, but I do not think we

should be responding to non police matters that the caller is perfectly

capable of handling if they weren't just plain lazy.

We do have a few Sgts and Lts that will allow the abuse of police services

and I find working with them a pleasure. Along these same lines, does anyone

offer rides home from the local hospital for those that ask. I'm not

speaking of the elderly or those who would need a medical transport home.

I'm talking about those that call the police just like they'd call the local

taxi except we won't charge the $20.

Patty

BTPD NJ

January 20, 2002

----- Original Message -----

<<We have the resources available to do all that. I still think alot of

things we dispatch are NOT what law enforcement is for. But sucking up for

the tax dollars is all part of customer service, I guess...........sorry,

said it again.>>

O ya Bob. Down in Central Ohio If you want an Officer, Don't matter for

what. YOU GET AN OFFICER.

Now it may take the officer 5 hours to get there, becasue there call is

written as a LOW priority run. And on a summer night with 50-70 calls

pending on the busy side of town, It is going to be several HOURS before

they can come over.

But CUSTOMER SERVICE is what it is all about, and if the CUSTOMER wants it

they GET IT !!!!!

Jim

January 20, 2002

WE tend to make these calls a higher priority, we held a check welfare one

evening for more then 10 hours (a multiple homicide kinda tied things up!)

and when police arrived the female subject was DEAD!

Of course there is NO good way to tell when she died exactly, so no blame

was assigned.

L.

Madison, WI

January 20, 2002

Re: 911:: Welfare Checks

> Same here. If they want an officer they get one. Timeliness depends on

the type/priority of call. We can try to talk them > out of it if we know

for a fact there is nothing the police can do, but if the caller insists, we

do not have the authority to say no.

> Jim

> Mr 911

> TriCom

>

That's an interesting concept:. " ..if the caller insists, we do not have the

authority to say no. " Does that policy cover any call about anything? It

must be based on department policy rather than any statutory requirement, I

would assume. I know of no laws in California, at least, that require the

police to respond to all - or even any (almost) - calls for service.

Technically, there are actually very very few things that California peace

officers MUST do. They must respond to a magistrate's direct order to make

an arrest; they must investigate (take a report) in certain spousal and

child abuse/endangerment situations; they must accept persons arrested in

so-called " citizen's " arrests, though they may release them immediately if

in their judgement the arrest is not lawful or proper. And a few other

things I can't recall of the top of my pate.

Heck, in Los Angeles, ferinstance, most non-crime calls are simply not

dispatched on, period. Police are almost never sent on non-injury traffic

collisions, absent hit-and-run or DUI. Even many " cold " crime calls are

frequently handled by over-the-phone report-takers ONLY.

Which is not to say LAPD doesn't respond to calls. In 1999, units were

dispatched on 842,317 out of 2,976,559 telephone calls received by

Communications Division - about 28%. And even at that 28% level, there are

many calls that are not able to be dispatched for hours, especially during

periods. If EVERY call were to be dispatched on, some would obviously be

delayed for days, literally. The system - both CAD and people-wise could

not begin to handle that workload.

Again, resources and priorities...

Harry Marnell

http://www.snowcrest.net/marnells/kma367.htm <~~ LAPD Communications

History

January 20, 2002

Oh, 30 years ago anyway, it was in the CA Penal Code that a peace officer

had knowledge that a duel was to take place, he was obligated to respond in

order to try to stop it. Can't find it in the code now. Maybe duels are

now legal? I do know that suicide is not a crime here, but helping someone

commit suicide is. Only instance I can think of where it's illegal to help

someone commit a legal act. But I digress. Yet again

hm

Re: 911:: Welfare Checks

.. I know of no laws in California, at least, that require the

> police to respond to all - or even any (almost) - calls for service.

> Technically, there are actually very very few things that California peace

> officers MUST do.

>

> Harry Marnell

> http://www.snowcrest.net/marnells/kma367.htm <~~ LAPD Communications

> History

January 20, 2002

Cripes, I'm answering my own emails now. Here's one other thing ya gotta

dispatch on, by law...I think this is where " dueling " used to be included...

Calif Penal Code §410. If a magistrate or officer, having notice of an

unlawful or

riotous assembly, mentioned in this Chapter, neglects to proceed to

the place of assembly, or as near thereto as he can with safety, and

to exercise the authority with which he is invested for suppressing

the same and arresting the offenders, he is guilty of a misdemeanor.

And I still agree with what I said before too.

Re: 911:: Welfare Checks

> Oh, 30 years ago anyway, it was in the CA Penal Code that a peace officer

> had knowledge that a duel was to take place, he was obligated to respond

in

> order to try to stop it. Can't find it in the code now.

January 20, 2002

We will do a 'welfare check' at a callers request, as traffic allows. That means

we often wake people up at WAY past 0-dark:30 in the morning. If they are OK,

and most of the time they are, we tell them that " so-and-so asked us to come by

and check, and will you please call them? Here's their number. " If their phone

is out of order, we will call back to reporting party and let them know all is

well and the phone is out. If the house is dark, nobody answers, or they just

flat refuse to answer the door, we report that to the caller. Lacking evidence

of anything amiss, that's the end of our response, we leave. We HAVE found a

few injured people, usually elders who have fallen, and we get them an ambulance

and off to the hospital. At our department, if the caller asks for a deputy or

an officer, they get one, doesn't matter. Even after we tell them there's

nothing that the officer can do, I suppose they have to hear it from the

uniform, and not from someone who is 'just' a dispatcher.

As for missing/overdue persons, if the reporting party wants to make the report,

by California law we have to take the report, and enter it into MUPS. (and the

first agency that gets the call is supposed to take the report, regardless.

This makes it interesting when the person was last seen in our county 'a couple

of years ago', the caller is at the other end of the state. I'm glad I don't

have to do anymore with it all after the initial entry into MUPS!) In the misc

field, we indicate disposition as 'check the welfare, advise to call <whoever

reported, or family, etc>'. If they don't want to, we can't make them. A

located is placed, disposition noted, end of story, have a good day.

Jim J Reeves, Jr KC6YRU

Tulare County Sheriff's Department

Visalia, Ca USA

jimmiejoe@...

Usual disclaimer about not speaking for my agency. I can answer the phone, but

God forbid I say anything for them!

-- Re: 911:: Welfare Checks

I do have a question for you as a point of interest: If a person calls

requesting a welfare check on an over-due person that is over the legal age

of consent, but has no basis to believe any harm has come to them, how does

your agency justify looking for them? They have broken no laws and can

(pretty much) do what they want when they want.

********************************************************************

Iowa State Patrol Communications

Werling NØXZY

scott@...

January 20, 2002

While I agree that for liability purposes we should send, I also think with

a little common sense and some questioning, you can determine if it is a

legitamate welfare check. If it is legit, send. If it is simply harrassment

or someone wanting to get hold of someone because they do not have a phone

and want them to call, then no..do not send.

Lets not forget, we are in a profession that we can be sued for doing and

not doing. As the old saying goes ... Damned if we, Damned if we don't.

Long

Communications Shift Supv.

McKinney Police/Fire/EMS

McKinney,Tx

RE: 911:: Welfare Checks

<<It's not ok just to " send the unit " ... without really finding out

about

the

call. >>

And have my socks sued off if I don't send a unit and something is

wrong?

You must be joking.

Bob

Dispatcher

January 20, 2002

> Cripes, I'm answering my own emails now. Here's one other thing ya gotta

> dispatch on, by law...I think this is where " dueling " used to be

included...

>

********************************************************************

You know what that means when you start answering your own postings right?

To the Looney Bin with you good sir.

OR

Pass the Prozac.

Iowa State Patrol Communications

Werling NØXZY

scott@...

January 20, 2002

>we the ability to do a " Query Query " to see if a person

> or vehicle has been queried by any agency. This woman had been involved

in

> an auto accident on last Wednesday.

> Kathy.

********************************************************************

We don't have that available to us here in Iowa. We have to go through

another agency for this information. They are M - F 9 - 5 only.

Makes it tough to do.

Oh darn, I forgot crime only happens in Iowa M - F 9 - 5. Darn helpful of

them to do this too!

Iowa State Patrol Communications

Werling NØXZY

scott@...