REALLY long and boring. Read at your own risk <g>
Admin0140434 said:
... isnt tying up a 911 line illegal in all 50 states? this "my burger is wrong" lady could have been arrested
Not likely in California, where in over 25 years I've known of only one arrest/prosecution of a caller, a man who had been calling our 9-1-1 lines literally for years, and who had been spoken to repeatedly by officers and detectives.
It's actually a fairly complicated issue, and it plagues probably every PSAP. It brings into play not only the law, but a lot of difficult to quantify (much less prove) things like intent, definitions, observations and perceptions, and competency, as well as local procedures and public education.
Each state's laws are different, but one section of the California Penal Code (148.3) says that "Any individual who reports... that an "emergency" exists, knowing that the report is false, is guilty of a misdemeanor." It then defines an emergency as "any condition which results in, or which could result in, the response of a public official in an authorized emergency vehicle..."** Now that wording includes anything a cop could be sent on. Arguably the burger call could have easily escalated to what we would dispatch as a "business dispute." So under that statute it could be considered an "emergency." And the CALLER didn't seem to believe that what she was reporting was "false" (even though it was ridiculous), so neither of the required elements was really met there. Just felony stupid, perhaps.
For many if not most callers, their 9-1-1 call is the first time they've ever felt the need for the police, and for them whatever's happening often FEELS like an emergency. I may have answered a hundred calls a day for 25 years, so my definition may be radically different (and more accurate, from my perspective) from what the caller perceives. I have to take my customers as they are, and if they're not using 9-1-1 properly, I give them a quick tutorial, like the OCSO dispatcher did with the burger caller, and move on to the next one.
At my place, only about 25-30% of our 9-1-1 calls fall under OUR definition of an emergency or urgent call; another 30% or so are dispatchable but not emergencies. The remaining 30-40% are not dispatched on at all, being either not police problems (again OUR definition), duplicates, or reports that can be taken over the phone from the local station. We don't go to barking dogs, or cats stuck in trees, or non-injury traffic collisions, but the department just east of us may send a car on everything. We certainly can't expect the public to know the difference.
With the occasional exception, in my experience it's really a matter of insufficient public information and education, or simple ignorance, and not a criminal thing. Public safety people and scanner hobbyists have a pretty good grip on what's an emergency and what isn't. We live with the technicalities, the fine shadings and nuances of procedures and emergency vs non-emergency vs nonsense. The callers just believe they need help, and that 3-digit number is painted on every police car and fire engine they see. 9-1-1 is really a victim of its own success. "Need police or fire or ambulance?" we've been shouting from the rooftops for 30 years, "dial 9-1-1." So they do.
And it's not just in the U.S. Check this out -
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/units_and_departments/communications/999_calls/ has some interesting "999" calls. And they even have a written transcript for each if the accent makes it hard to understand. <g>
**Really going off-topic, if anyone is even still reading this. There is a newer and more relevant California law, Penal Code Section 653y. Note that ITS definition of "emergency" differs from the 148.3's(above), and it describes all the hoops we'd have to go through. Hardly worth the effort, IMHO, except for really egregious violations:
"653y. (a) Any person who knowingly allows the use or who uses the
911 telephone system for any reason other than because of an
emergency is guilty of an infraction, punishable as follows:
(1) For a first or second violation, a written warning shall be
issued to the violator by the public safety entity originally
receiving the call describing the punishment for subsequent
violations. The written warning shall inform the recipient to notify
the issuing agency that the warning was issued inappropriately if
the recipient did not make, or knowingly allow the use of the 911
telephone system for, the nonemergency 911 call. The law enforcement
agency may provide educational materials regarding the appropriate
use of the 911 telephone system.
(2) For a third or subsequent violation, a citation may be issued
by the public safety entity originally receiving the call pursuant
to which the violator shall be subject to the following penalties
that may be reduced by a court upon consideration of the violator's
ability to pay:
(A) For a third violation, a fine of fifty dollars ($50).
(B) For a fourth violation, a fine of one hundred dollars ($100).
(C) For a fifth or subsequent violation, a fine of two hundred
dollars ($200).
(b) The parent or legal guardian having custody and control of an
unemancipated minor who violates this section shall be jointly and
severally liable with the minor for the fine imposed pursuant to this
section.
(c) For purposes of this section, "emergency" means any condition
in which emergency services will result in the saving of a life, a
reduction in the destruction of property, quicker apprehension of
criminals, or assistance with potentially life-threatening medical
problems, a fire, a need for rescue, an imminent potential crime, or
a similar situation in which immediate assistance is required.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section shall not apply
to a telephone corporation or any other entity for acts or omissions
relating to the routine maintenance, repair, or operation of the 911
or 311 telephone system."
