Police dishonesty on the air?

KR3LC · #1 (**permalink**) 03-23-2007, 11:45 PM

Anyone ever been in a position to witness (eyes and ears) an officer's dishonest response to a call? Is this a taboo topic?

n0doz · #2 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 12:54 AM

Care to elaborate?

bill71 · #3 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 02:03 AM

Do you mean checking that a call is clear without ever leaving the coffee shop?

NeFire242 · #4 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 02:42 AM

Many bigger cities do that, if the RP doesn't wish to be seen for something such as a barking dog, noise complaint, etc., the unit will go back in service right as its dispatched. Just clears the call of the screen.

troymail · #5 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeFire242

Many bigger cities do that, if the RP doesn't wish to be seen for something such as a barking dog, noise complaint, etc., the unit will go back in service right as its dispatched. Just clears the call of the screen.

i've heard similar things - but in the cases I hear, it isn't dishonesty, it's a concious decision by the supervisiors...

KR3LC · #6 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 10:30 AM

In a nutshell this is what happened...

The call was for three suspicious persons photographing landing planes from the observation area at BWI. (A few minutes after the call went out they put their cameras and binoculars away and went for a walk.)

The responding officer called on the scene when not yet in sight of the parking lot.

She then called back nothing suspicious at the very moment she turned onto the lot, rather than after making a full sweep. It was a very, very busy place with tons of people all over.

A description of the car was given to the responding officer and she drove past it after already reporting she was clear from the scene.

I saw a level of dishonesty in this action because (1) she reported on scene when still about 30 or 40 seconds out of sight, (2) reported nothing suspicioius as soon as she turned onto the lot, and (3) I do not believe she was so well-trained she could take in the dozens of cars and probably a couple hundred people before sweeping the area fully.

Maybe her force gets these calls all the time but I would think still around an airport they would be more responsible when answering these calls. But this is my opinion.

daleduke17 · #7 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 10:38 AM

Did the officer call out "on scene" or "in the area"? Sometimes around this area an officer will call out 10-60 when they are in the block of the call, and 10-23 when they get to the building.

JoeyC · #8 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 12:39 PM

Hmm, I'm not getting the dishonesty part in this scenario. She called on scene 30 seconds ahead of time (not an uncommon practice). The call was for people taking pictures of planes landing. Something people have been doing ever since the first planes and cameras and certainly not against any law. Pulling into the parking lot and not finding a disturbance of some sort, I'm sure alot of officers would have done the same. The reporting party probably remained anonymous and there is no one to follow up with in this case, so the call sounded like a waste of time actually.

n0doz · #9 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 12:51 PM

>The call was for three suspicious persons photographing landing planes from the observation area at BWI. (A few minutes after the call went out they put their cameras and binoculars away and went for a walk.)<
Oh, one of THOSE calls. I work at an airport... we get these calls all the time. Waste of time: there are people that do this as a hobby. They're called "plane spotters." Very popular in some places. And totally legal. Now, if they were using the scope on a rifle to look at the planes, by all means, call me!

>The responding officer called on the scene when not yet in sight of the parking lot.<
So? Every police department has an unofficial "standard" for how close to a scene the officers call in code 6. What's BWI's?

>She then called back nothing suspicious at the very moment she turned onto the lot, rather than after making a full sweep. It was a very, very busy place with tons of people all over.<
And a trained officer should be able to make an immediate assessment of the area...she was probably familiar with it, don't you think?

>A description of the car was given to the responding officer and she drove past it after already reporting she was clear from the scene.<
Again, so? A report of innocent, common, fully-legal activity is not reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop.

>I saw a level of dishonesty in this action because (1) she reported on scene when still about 30 or 40 seconds out of sight, (2) reported nothing suspicioius as soon as she turned onto the lot, and (3) I do not believe she was so well-trained she could take in the dozens of cars and probably a couple hundred people before sweeping the area fully.<
Well! Now I see... you're offended because the officer, who actually works there and is fully trained in airport law enforcement (and I know this because her very presence at the airport requires it) did not fully investigate a legal, trivial, innocent behavior.

>Maybe her force gets these calls all the time but I would think still around an airport they would be more responsible when answering these calls. But this is my opinion.<
"All the time" is an understatement. The public doesn't seem to understand what's suspicious and what's normal behavior, and because of this thinks the police need to conduct a full-blown investigation every time they (the public) call.
I am obviously offended by your characterization of this officer as "dishonest." Unless you are an airport police officer yourself, know and understand not only the local and state laws but also the requirements under 1542 and 1544 for local police officers assigned to airports, plus the local Airport Security Plan, don't go around carelessly labeling someone as "dishonest."

benrussellpa · #10 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 06:54 PM

With hobbyists like these, we need more police!

Oh wait, I'm one of those ever suspicious "train buffs". I gotta tell ya, there's nothing more annoying than being on the other end of one of these calls when an overzealous police officer decides to take his aggravations out on you or is one of that percentage of officers who have a control complex. It is always appreciated when a plane spotter or train spotter is approached by an understanding officer or, god forbid, that officer who "acts dishonestly" and knows that people are just trying to enjoy themselves. As another poster already said, these kinds of calls are very common in some areas and sometimes the people who are suspicious are even "regulars" with whom the police may already be familiar.

http://www.airliners.net/

http://www.jetphotos.net/

http://www.railpictures.net

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net

Don_Burke · #11 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 07:32 PM

I thought behavior like that was what observation areas were for.

suzukirider · #12 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 07:43 PM

seriously, i'm surprised the officer even drove to the scene..."people taking pictures of planes...no i don't wanna be seen"

the 911 call taker and dispatcher could have easily ignored that one...or put it on indefinite "hold."

i guess the airports are safe if the officer has time to follow that one up...good thing.

abe

n0doz · #13 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 09:47 PM

Lot of airports have done away with observation areas. Denver Int'l never had one to begin with. Others closed theirs following 9/11 as a security measure.

Mark · #14 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 10:26 PM

Agree with Ben's post.Unwarranted fear from 9/11 has caused innocent American civilians headaches when it comes to taking a lousy picture of train,airplane etc.
You can call it security or whatever but reminds me more of Stalinist Russia than the USA.
I like the old Ben Franklin quote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Mark

SLWilson · #15 (**permalink**) 03-24-2007, 10:39 PM

OK....Imagine "this" based on what the original post described....

MAYBE it was REALLY the police or other UNDERCOVER law enforcement "types"...They were where they were because they were "watching, photographing" some illegal activity.

Someone calls the police. (The police already KNOW what's really going on)

The guys actually taking the pictures probably had a radio and KNEW they'd been "had" but, they probably ALREADY had their pictures anyway....

The poster says "they packed up and left" as soon as the call went out, right?

Well, that would explain the patrol officer telling the dispatcher what he did....He KNEW that they weren't crooks. But, the call had to be cleared....So, he did!!!!

Now, all of this above is just as plausible as about anything else I've read so far....

Steve/KB8FAR

EyeSpy · #16 (**permalink**) 03-26-2007, 05:21 PM

So... from what I see, you seem to be the caller... You have all of the details of the officer and the suspects actions, including they left just after the call was placed... and your offended your "civil duty" call was not handled in the manor you expected it to be.

Not dishonesty, just not seeing dishonest acts... you need probable cause and based on what you wrote, there was none the officer would have.

Samuel · #17 (**permalink**) 03-26-2007, 05:21 PM

Marking on scene before actually getting right up on the scene is not only common practice its an officer safety issue. It allows you to be more attentive to your suroundings and get out of the vehicle quicker when you actually do get on scene. Say these had been "real terrorists"....would you want to be fumbling with the radio and MDT when you rolled up on them?