2 Emergency Dispatchers Charged in Mich

[DES630 10]

Jun 7, 6:29 PM EDT

2 Emergency Dispatchers Charged in Mich.

By DAVID N. GOODMAN

Associated Press Writer

DETROIT (AP) -- Two 911 operators who authorities say wrongly assumed it was a prank when a 5-year-old boy called to report that his mother had collapsed have been charged with neglect of duty.

By the time an officer arrived, the boy's 46-year-old mother was dead.

"I understand they get a quite a few crank calls, but you have to take it seriously when someone calls 911," Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said Wednesday in announcing charges against Sharon Nichols, 43, and Terri Sutton, 47.

They could get a year in jail if convicted of the misdemeanor.

Worthy said the mother, Sherrill Turner, might be alive today had the dispatchers done their jobs correctly.

Robert Turner, now 6, called 911 twice on Feb. 20 to report that his mother had collapsed and needed medical care, but "neither operator treated this as an emergency," the prosecutor said.

No police car was sent after Nichols took the first call. The boy called again three hours later, and Sutton reacted by sending police out to discipline the child and inform the parent that the youngster was dialing 911, Worthy said.

Kimberly Harris, president of the dispatchers' union, called the charges "absolutely ludicrous" and said the operators could not hear the boy's call well because they use antiquated headsets.

"If the operators were able to hear, then they would have heard what the little boy said, and he would have received the proper units," she said.

She said tapes of the call released to the media were enhanced and did not contain background noise.

Police spokesman James Tate said he could not comment on the headset allegation because of pending litigation against the city.

Attorney Geoffrey Fieger, who defended assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the city on behalf of the family. Fieger said Robert's mother, who had an enlarged heart, would have survived if help had been sent immediately.

Disciplinary action against the operators was pending and could range from suspension without pay to dismissal, police said.

The prosecutor refused to say if the two should have been fired, but added, "They should not be taking 911 calls."

[res6cue 67]

Outstanding. It is "absolutely ludicrous" for a professional dispatcher to ever take it upon themselves to assume or determine any 911 call is a prank.

Kimberly Harris, president of the dispatchers' union, called the charges "absolutely ludicrous" and said the operators could not hear the boy's call well because they use antiquated headsets.

"If the operators were able to hear, then they would have heard what the little boy said, and he would have received the proper units," she said.

She said tapes of the call released to the media were enhanced and did not contain background noise.

I call bullsh!t. Funny, they could hear well enough to know it was a little boy calling, to determine he was "playing with the phone" and to send PD to "discipline him" the second time he calls...yet they couldn't hear well enough on the initial call? That's why you have a tape running, so you can play it back if need be.

I'm glad Rockland has a policy that PD gets sent to check all 911 calls, including hang ups or what seem to be pranks. Some will argue that it takes a unit off his patrol to check a potential (or probable) BS call, but that's far better than someone's call for help going unanswered, as was the case here.

[Guest Rich DD]

Kimberly Harris, president of the dispatchers' union, called the charges "absolutely ludicrous" and said the operators could not hear the boy's call well because they use antiquated headsets.

"If the operators were able to hear, then they would have heard what the little boy said, and he would have received the proper units," she said.

←

I say bullshit also. I heard the tapes when the story hit the news. If they were able to hear that someone was calling the ambulance, or any other emergency service they were able to hear him!! They heard enough to send a Police Officer to complain about a prank call !! That is bullshit, and to get a "possible" year for this CRIME is not enough!! They should be getting man slaughter charges, and serving at least 10 years.

Just my opinion!!!

[Jared1979 19]

I agree, what they did was so stupid they should be brought on manslaughter charges no reason for that to happen

[IzzyEng4 427]

Antiquated head sets?????? BULL!!!!!!! Lets see, there is something else they could have used and are manditory for backups

A HANDSET!!!!!!!!!!!!! The good old fasion way never fails!

[Guest]

Back ground noise and headsets possibility. no excuses but I could see that those reasons could be contributing factors to the out come of the call.

Edited June 9, 2006 by tanker42

[CAM502 6]

Back ground noise and headsets possibility. no excuses but I could see that those reasons could be contributing factors to the out come of the call.

←

What the heck r u talking about?? How r they contributing factors? Here's the scenario: You are a 911 calltaker. You receive a call where you can't make out exactly what is going on on the other end. You send someone to investigate. Period end of story! Even if this was an FD answering a secondary PSAP and you get a relay and the ALI screen comes up but you can't hear anyone on the line, YOU SEND SOMEONE TO INVESTIGATE. The first time it happened to me, I'm glad we sent them out. I only say this because it turned out to be a 3rd Alarm fire and the reason we heard nobody on the line when we answered was because the phone line burned through as the guy was dailing 911.

My point is there is no excuse for what happened in Detroit. The dispatchers screwed up and didn't do there job properly. And for the President of the union to say the charges are "absolutely ludicrous"....I understand that the union needs to support the members but......well I'll leave it at that.

[HFD750 6]

What the heck r u talking about??  How r they contributing factors?  Here's the scenario: You are a 911 calltaker.  You receive a call where you can't make out exactly what is going on on the other end.  You send someone to investigate.  Period end of story!  Even if this was an FD answering a secondary PSAP and you get a relay and the ALI screen comes up but you can't hear anyone on the line, YOU SEND SOMEONE TO INVESTIGATE.  The first time it happened to me, I'm glad we sent them out.  I only say this because it turned out to be a 3rd Alarm fire and the reason we heard nobody on the line when we answered was because the phone line burned through as the guy was dailing 911. 

My point is there is no excuse for what happened in Detroit.  The dispatchers screwed up and didn't do there job properly.  And for the President of the union to say the charges are "absolutely ludicrous"....I understand that the union needs to support the members but......well I'll leave it at that.

←

Well Said!!! What's wrong with people...

[Guest]

Well, at least these dispatchers had a union that would at least stand up for them.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

Time and time again you hear of these type of stories, you would think the dispatchers involved would think of these incidents and send someone....now I can see how it can get "routine" when you think of the 1000's and 1000's of calls that each dispatcher handles in a year at a busy center, and maybe can get careless or lazy...but thats where a really good dispatcher or supervisor rises above the rest and will take action, maybe even thinking of one of these times as his/her motivation to take action.........in Nassau we have a similar policy as Rockland even 911 hang ups get a squad car to check. I look at it as a game of hot potato...you do not want to be the one holding the potato so to speak....the chain of events should never end at the dispatch center whats that old saying...when in doubt blow em' out?

[JBE 328]

I haven't listened to the tapes, but from reading this story, I also call BS. You play back the tapes, antiquated equipment or not.

In my experience, you know when it's a prank. Like a kid in the North end of the Bronx calling in a fire in Brooklyn. I have one simple rule when it comes to this sort of thing, "When in doubt, Turn 'em out".

However, to say that these two women should be charged with manslaughter is taking it a bit too far. Is there anything that says the patient wasn't already dead before the child called?? I'm sorry to say folks, but getting fired and losing a pension is IMHO what these two deserve, not jail time.

(Quote) It is "absolutely ludicrous" for a professional dispatcher to ever take it upon themselves to assume or determine any 911 call is a prank.

(Quote)

First rule in Dispatching, never assume anything. Secondly, like previously stated, as a professional dispatcher, we can and do determine when a call is a prank. We have that authority. There are times when you can tell, and no action is taken. Other times, if it's just a child yelling fire and hanging up, units get sent. Refer to the "When in doubt" quote.

[Guest]

Home

Detroit 911 Tapes On-Line

Tuesday, 11 April 2006

The 911 logging tapes have been released for the Detroit (Mich.) incident: a 5 year-old called when his mother collapsed on the kitchen floor. In the first call a dispatcher says that she'll send police, but none ever arrive. About 3 hours later the youth called again, and the dispatcher seems to believe the call is a prank. The dispatcher created an incident classified as a child playing on the phone, and arriving police found the boy's mother dead from a heart ailment. Listen to the calls (.wav format) below, and read the buzz.

tape #1 / tape #2

Also watch the video of the dispatcher's union representative during her appearance on MSNBC's "Abrams Report" TV show.

© 2006 DISPATCH Monthly Magazine

Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL

I hope this plays if not you can listen to the tapes youself by going to this web page. . like i stated above about contributing factors head sets ,back ground noise are all factors, maybe included to that should be training and i did state no excuses so just slow down.

dispatch monthy maagazine take a look at it !

[JBE 328]

I just finished listening to both tapes. I am so calling BS on their union leader. I heard that kid clear as day. At no time did he sound like he was playing around. In my professional opinion(7 yrs. FDNY Dispatcher, nearly 2 as a Supervisor), both dispatchers are guilty of neglect of duty. I wanted to give them both the benefit of the doubt, but, there's no getting around it. The first dispatcher says she's going to send a car, and she didn't. The second one used three words you should NEVER use as a dispatcher, "I don't care".

Like I said in the first topic, it's not uncommon to become jaded after so many prank calls. This isn't being jaded, this was two people being incredibly stupid. While I don't think either should be jailed, they should be dismissed. No lawsuit is going to bring that lady back, nor is it going to get the family rich. This is one of those things where I actually feel bad for the two dispatchers because with the City immune from liability, they are both going to get hung out to dry, as opposed to the City settling.

Edited June 18, 2006 by JBE

[Guest]

jbe up all night?

I agree totally but you know as i do s happens .

Go back and listen to tape 1 again listen for back ground noise I hear it ( can almost hear the conversation going on) also at the first hint that the call is going wrong. I did not hear the first time the kid said momma passed out. the line kinda dropped,(then the call taker fails the number 1 skill, active listening, something i tell people all the time listen with your ears not your mouth) I listen again and heard it. It all went wrong after that agreed. Now consider the tape. Sounds real clear . Thats because its recording before it gets to the head set , If its anything like our high teck gizmos here in perfect. It comes through a phone line, into our phone system, then to the main recording system then to our dictaphone recording system, then to the pos head set. I have been told a 25 to 35 percent drop by the time it gets to the head set. ( worse for cell phones when state stays on line) add a little back ground noise, stress, a very busy center, training = tragedy. Why a cop was not sent the first time is in excusable.

Its nice to sit here in perfect

[res6cue 67]

Sorry, but I completely disagree. What happened in this case was negligence, plain and simple. It goes beyond just "two people being incredibly stupid". Of course no one can say for certain if the victim would have survived or not, but had the dispatchers done their job properly, at least she could've had a legitimate chance. It's for EMS to respond, assess and determine a person's viability, not a dispatcher answering a phone miles away. The most important function a dispatcher performs above all else is to make sure a call for help translates quickly and efficiently into the correct units responding. That clearly did not happen here, thus the charges of negligence. As if that weren't enough, you have indifference on their part by claiming to have sent a unit when one wasn't, and saying "I don't care". That more or less makes it gross negligence.

If fire officers can be charged with negligent homicide in training deaths, and apparatus operators charged criminally for injuries caused by accidents while responding, then dispatchers should be held to the same standard. Negligence is negligence, I don't care what uniform you're wearing when you're guilty of it. There should be no free pass for them. If they had dispatched EMS, and that EMS unit decided not to respond or responded 2 hours later, are you going to say that the EMTs/medics should only be dismissed and not have charges brought against them?

Edited June 18, 2006 by res6cue

[Guest]

Lets just clear a thing or two up before we all close down .

Incident in nyc a capsized boat a call to 911 no response 3 dead

Rockland a 911 cell call unable to locate 1 dead

Dispatchers were clearly to blame in both these incidents I Know none of them went to jail.

S happens just dont let it happen on your shift

[res6cue 67]

Please, tell me how a dispatcher is "clearly to blame" for a 911 cell phone call that has no ANI/ALI associated with it, and the caller has no clue where the hell they are when asked?

I don't know details of the alleged incident in the city you mention, but the one in Rockland was NOT the fault of any dispatchers, I assure you of that. The amount of resources 44-Control dispatches for those type of 911 cell calls, like the one the other evening at Bear Mountain, is tremendous. They usually have the chopper in the air searching along with PD, FD, EMS and the Tech Rescue team on the ground or enroute within minutes.

Let's keep it real here, ok? If you're going to make such claims, back it up with facts and proof. The facts and evidence in the Michigan case, which we are discussing here, is pretty clear in showing it was negligence on the part of the dispatchers.

Edited June 18, 2006 by res6cue

[JBE 328]

Incident in nyc a capsized boat a call to 911 no response 3 dead

If this is the City Island incident from a few years ago, the supervisor was disciplined, and the 911 operator was given a letter of reprimand. Don't start me on that one.

[Guest]

(New City, New York-AP) -- Emergency calls made from cell phones

in Rockland County will soon be answered by local dispatchers

rather than by distant state police.

The state 9-1-1 Board has given Rockland County permission to

have Rockland calls answered by dispatchers from the county

sheriff's office as soon as next month.

Currently, such calls are answered by state police, usually in

Orange County but sometimes much farther away.

In 2001, four men from New Jersey crashed into the woods near

Bear Mountain and their 911 call reached state police in Monroe,

Orange County. Partly because they were unable to tell the police

where they were, the rescue took six hours.

Pablo Ramos, Rockland's 9-1-1 coordinator, says Rockland

emergency calls are best made on regular phones - because addresses

can be pinpointed.

Ramos says Rockland has five major carriers Nextel, A-T-and-T,

Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile and he expects all cellular phone

companies to be hooked up within six months.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

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

SFDny1507-27-2003, 05:29 PM

As a Rockland firefighter, I can tell you the current method of receiving 911 calls from cell phones is a horror. 9 times out of 10, the call is received at SP in Monroe and then transferred. Recently a fellow Rockland FF was driving through Harriman State Park when his car caught fire. He dialed 911 and after several attempts got through to SP Monroe who transferred the call to 44-Control in Pomona. By the time the FD was dispatched it had been a good 30 minutes since his initial call.

I'm looking forward to see how the new system works and see what the effect on response times will be.

If I still had my old computer I could do better but what i remember from the finial official report on this call technology was to blame, they could not trianglate the call ( how many psap can today in 2006? ) and the dispatchers lack of traing on both the local and state side. The information that was given to the call takers by the victims was accurate but the dispatchers where not familiar with the area. As far as keeping it real 6 i do all the time and anytime.

[res6cue 67]

I'm also from Rockland, and I'm very familiar with both the incident in the article as well as a few others where cell calls were involved which delayed responses. My own dept was victim to it at no less than two calls which, naturally according to Murphy's Law, wound up being structure fires and the delay in routing and dispatch had a significant negative impact on the entire situation. In all cases, it had nothing to do with any fault or lack of training of the dispatchers in Rockland County.

When you made this statement:

Rockland a 911 cell call unable to locate 1 dead

Dispatchers were clearly to blame in both these incidents I Know none of them went to jail.

it came off pretty clearly like you insinuated it was indeed the dispatchers in Rockland's fault. Again, it was not. The dispatchers at 44-Control are very familiar with the entire county. Once the call was finally routed from SP Monroe to 44-Control, they were able to get the right units dispatched. It should also be pointed out that right in the article itself it clearly states:

Partly because they were unable to tell the police where they were, the rescue took six hours

so I'm really not sure how you can then go on to say:

The information that was given to the call takers by the victims was accurate but the dispatchers where not familiar with the area.

You just completely contradicted the documented facts of the incident in order to make your own point. That, my friend, is not "keeping it real".

Let me give you a bit more background on this whole issue, having intimate first hand knowledge of it. As the article states, 911 calls in Rockland were usually routed to either NYSP Monroe, or worse to Bergen NJ or even Westchester, depending on what provider you had and what cell tower you managed to hit. One of the biggest culprits of this problem was, no surprise, the state itself. They didn't want to give up the 911 cell call taking because there was revenue involved in it (check your cell phone bill, that 911 tax is going to the state, not the local government). As it turns out, Rockland took the lead on this issue and was one of, if not the, first county in NYS to challenge the state and win control of the routing of 911 cell calls placed within its borders.

Read this article for more info on the whole situation, notably the "Barriers" section, where it clearly states the following:

Wireless 911 surcharge monies are assessed on every cell phone bill ($.70 per bill per month) in New York. The surcharge monies are transferred to an account that does not provide funding to individual county PSAPs which are almost universally managed by County Sheriff departments. The New York State Government has chosen to dedicate this money to projects within the state other than WE-911 deployment.

http://www.its.dot.gov/pubsafety/new_york_...sons_learnd.htm

Edited June 21, 2006 by res6cue

[CAM502 6]

Not that this has anything to do with this particular thread, but calling 911 via a cellphone sucks....no matter where you are. And don't even waste your time if you have a Nextel. I've learned to just dial the county or state pd direct it will save you a lot of trouble. As for people not knowing where they are...The world is full of morons, what more can you say.

Edited June 21, 2006 by CAM502

[CAM502 6]

Delete me please....

Edited June 21, 2006 by CAM502

[JBE 328]

As for people not knowing where they are...The world is full of morons, what more can you say.

My friend, you have no idea.

[JBE 328]

If fire officers can be charged with negligent homicide in training deaths, and apparatus operators charged criminally for injuries caused by accidents while responding, then dispatchers should be held to the same standard. Negligence is negligence, I don't care what uniform you're wearing when you're guilty of it. There should be no free pass for them.

It's pretty obvious to me that they are far from getting a free pass. Now, here's where it gets fuzzy. The examples you state are valid ones. However, like we agreed on earlier, it hasn't been proven as to if this lady was dead prior to the first or second phone call. Apples and Oranges. The examples you posted are where those actions of a fire officer, or apparatus operator directly contributed to those deaths. Can it be proven that the actions taken, or lack of action directly contributed to this womans death?? I know I sound like a real dirtbag attorney here, but this is what I feel would be the defense, if it went to a homicide by negligence. What's to say she wasn't dead when she hit the floor?? The bottom line is, these two operators F'ed up big time and should get the punishment due. But to say they are guilty of criminally negligent homicide, sorry, this is where you and I will agree to disagree.

[res6cue 67]

I understand where you're coming from JBE, and I agree the case isn't really cut and dry (what is in today's world anymore?). My gut feeling is that she probably was dead when she hit the floor, only God knows that for sure. It just really bothers me that the dispatchers wouldn't even have a tiny bit of doubt enough to send someone to check. That's why I don't have a problem with charges being filed against them. Whether I think they actually deserve to go to jail is a different story, I don't. But I think the mere filing of charges hopefully will send a signal to other people with this responsibility, that if faced with a similar situation they may think "you know, I better send someone just in case, I don't want to end up like those idiots in Michigan".

[Guest]

September 01, 2001

911: How do you track a cell phone?

MONROE: Cops say it's not unusual to have trouble pinpointing the location of 911 callers with cell phones.

By Chris McKenna

The Times Herald-Record

cmckenna@th-record.com

An accident near Bear Mountain this week illustrated a problem state police say they often face on a much less extreme level – finding someone who calls 911 on a cell phone.

Early Wednesday morning, a car plunged off the side of Route 9W in Rockland County and fell 400 feet, killing the driver and leaving three passengers wounded. One passenger called 911 with a cell phone. Because the car was out of view and the caller could not describe the location, it took six hours for help to arrive.

State police know the problem well, but on a smaller scale, with delays measured in minutes rather than hours.

Every day, dispatchers in Monroe are deluged with 911 calls from cell-phone users. Had the callers been using land-based phones, their addresses would appear on a call-taker's monitor. But cell phones don't offer that information.

And so, a dispatcher often must probe for details – as crucial minutes pass.

The problem, which police say happens more often with hikers than drivers, has become more apparent as more people carry cell phones.

In many cases, the quirky nature of cell phones can compound the problem of determining a caller's location.

Usually, a cell company's nearest tower will pick up a 911 call and direct the signal to a designated answering agency. But other factors can intervene. Bad weather, topography, a high volume of calls at the nearest tower – all can cause cell-phone signals to bounce around with unpredictable results.

But new technology may soon help clear up the confusion.

The Federal Communications Commission has given wireless companies until Oct. 1 to adopt one of two approaches to tracking the location of cell users: putting global-positioning chips inside each handset or using multiple cell towers to plot callers' coordinates.

Copyright 2001 Orange County Publications, a division of Ottaway Newspapers Inc., all rights reserved.

From what i remember from listening to some of the tapes the victim talked of a landmark that was well known by many seasoned officers. That information was not given out to the units in the field i dont remember if it was state pd in jersey new york or rockland . 6 maybe you have better info i would like to hear it. In this case one of the victims after 6 hours crawled out of the woods and flagged down help him self. The driver still died no mis information here. Just the facts.

Just cause this thread is going so smothly

getting back to detroit What criminial act did the second call taker commit ?

She answered the 911 call, mis judged the authenticity of the call, but still followed proper procedure and sent an officer to investagate. Where is the criminial act ?

last i checked being stupid or crazy is not a crime. looks to me the second call taker is a scapegoat.

[JBE 328]

I understand where you're coming from JBE, and I agree the case isn't really cut and dry (what is in today's world anymore?). My gut feeling is that she probably was dead when she hit the floor, only God knows that for sure. It just really bothers me that the dispatchers wouldn't even have a tiny bit of doubt enough to send someone to check. That's why I don't have a problem with charges being filed against them. Whether I think they actually deserve to go to jail is a different story, I don't. But I think the mere filing of charges hopefully will send a signal to other people with this responsibility, that if faced with a similar situation they may think "you know, I better send someone just in case, I don't want to end up like those idiots in Michigan".

←

Holy Smoke, we're actually agreeing!!! I have no problem with either one of them being charged as well. Now here's where I see where T 42 is coming from. The second call taker, while obviously being unprofessional, took action. Not sure if a jury of her peers will see it in the same light, but she is less deserving of a serious sanction as opposed to her counterpart. It's truly unfortunate, but it shouldn't have to take criminal charges against these two dispatchers to make everyone else out there do what they should already be doing. Do the job, do it right, and as I have said on this forum numerous times, "When in doubt, TURN EM OUT!!!!"