UHP mis-use of ten codes

[tahoekid77]

I've listened in on many LE agencies in many states - and have noticed that UHP uses 10-4 as 'affirmative' instead of 'message received'. Every time I hear them use it in the wrong context I yell at my radio. Other states and agencies use the word 'affirmative'. CB as well uses 10-4 as 'understood'. Maybe being a pilot and using a radio for 30 years has baked 'affirmative' into my head.

UHP dispatch often does a 'I'm checking on your status" (10-36) (which also does not match APCO list) and the officers respond 10-4, instead of 'code 4'. Sort of like "How are you?", response, "I received your message".

APCO agrees with me

Official Ten-Code List

</END VENT>

[rapidcharger]

That's one of my peeves too. It's certainly not unique to Utah.

[lep]

To the best of my knowledge "10 codes" mean whatever the Agency wants them to. The trend is to use Plain Language instead of brevity codes anyway. Yelling to your scanner suggests maybe you sholuld rethink how much pleasrue you get from this hobby!

[kayn1n32008]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

Not sure what the big deal is. I have been standing beside RCMP when they receive a 10-70 (are you ok) check by cell phone and the officer answers the phone with "I'm 70" when it is done by radio the usual response is simply for the officer to respond with "70" or "I'm 70" not sure what the big deal is. The officers and dispatchers all understand and know what each other is intending by the 10 codes they use...

[ecps92]

There is nothing Official, unless it's right from the Dept Using Them.

APCO is a recommended set of standards

But why anyone is still using Codes, when the National Standard has been to move to Plain Language

Originally Posted by tahoekid77

I've listened in on many LE agencies in many states - and have noticed that UHP uses 10-4 as 'affirmative' instead of 'message received'. Every time I hear them use it in the wrong context I yell at my radio. Other states and agencies use the word 'affirmative'. CB as well uses 10-4 as 'understood'. Maybe being a pilot and using a radio for 30 years has baked 'affirmative' into my head.

UHP dispatch often does a 'I'm checking on your status" (10-36) (which also does not match APCO list) and the officers respond 10-4, instead of 'code 4'. Sort of like "How are you?", response, "I received your message".

APCO agrees with me

Official Ten-Code List

</END VENT>

[jhooten]

Non-standard 10 codes are one of the reasons for the mandate to use plain language during incidents.

[tahoekid77]

Wonder if that will ever happen. CHP uses a huge vocabulary of ten codes, incident (VC) codes, etc. I learned their lingo way back, its almost all numbers. "23152" = "DUI". Takes almost as long to say one as the other.

[Hooligan]

Originally Posted by tahoekid77

Wonder if that will ever happen. CHP uses a huge vocabulary of ten codes, incident (VC) codes, etc. I learned their lingo way back, its almost all numbers. "23152" = "DUI". Takes almost as long to say one as the other.

Just to clarify things for Utahns not familiar with California scanner vernacular, much of what is used in CA are the Code section #s from state statutes, so they're well-known to all CA LEOs.

For example, "23152" is State of California Vehicle Code section 23152, which deals with (basically) driving under the influence.

"187" = California Penal Code section dealing with Murder.

The third type of legislative Code that's often used over the public safety airwaves is the Health & Safety Code, which gives use ones like "11352" (drug sales) & the last one often heard is Welfare & Institutions Code, which gives us the all-too-popular "5150" section heard on the scanner.

Find California Code


But yes, California is kind of a mess with 10-code/Brevity Codes. When I lived in the mexican ghetto section of Redwood City (San Mateo County), & after shaking him down for $$ to reimburse me for my inconvenience, I'd call Redwood City PD to report the drunk mexican passed-out on my front lawn, the dispatch could be given as "647F" (Penal Code for basically drunk in public), "10-51" (brevity code for drunk), or "HBD" (politically-correct BS meaning Has Been Drinking). Then if more taxpayer dollars are wasted for a Fire/EMS response, the code they'd be dispatched with is "ETOH" -- which means ethanol -- a polite, non-diagnostic means of implying signs/symptoms of alcohol in the bloodstream so that the medical professionals can't be sued in-case it was actually a diabetic coma or something.

[tahoekid77]

Scanning UHP in Utah is comical at times. They often use first names, and ask for lunch orders over the radio for their up coming break. "Hey Jim, what kind of burrito do you want?". Or, "Hey Sarge, may I need to leave early to pick up my kid from school?". I never hear that sort of radio traffic for CHP - they're strictly by the book.

[Observer1]

Originally Posted by tahoekid77

Scanning UHP in Utah is comical at times. They often use first names, and ask for lunch orders over the radio for their up coming break. "Hey Jim, what kind of burrito do you want?". Or, "Hey Sarge, may I need to leave early to pick up my kid from school?". I never hear that sort of radio traffic for CHP - they're strictly by the book.

Some of that is geography based. Many UHP areas there is little or no cell coverage, their radio us their only reliable communication tool. They also are very understaffed, leading to everyone knowing everyone.

UHP has the same number of Troopers now as they did in the 70's despite the population of Utah more than doubling.

You'll often hear first names on car to car channels for SLCPD for example. Nothing wrong with that.

Not sure that any state is 'better' than any other. California certainly has issues and oddities. Right down to developing their own phonetic alphabet.

[K9DAK]

Indeed, I'd vote for plain language. Example: One of our county deputies was on scene at a domestic disturbance (10-16), and radioed in for a "10-51." The dispatcher came back and asked him why he needed a tow truck at a domestic. He replied "oh, sorry, make that a 10-52!" Dispatch said "OK, I'll send rescue then, not a hook."

[enosjones]

I have a friend that works uhp and they are switching to "plain speech" but the ones that are used to the 10 codes use them. Those who are " newer" use plain speech but its getting better..

[Confuzzled]

I wish NIMS had stuck to their guns. A few years back, they issued a policy stating essentially that if you don't use clear text, don't bother applying for Federal funds.

They backed down a few months later and changed the language of the policy.

I still think the clear text rule applies to comm centers that dispatch multiple agencies, but it isn't enforced.

[n4yek]

(Just for fun, no flame intended...)

Originally Posted by tahoekid77

Every time I hear them use it in the wrong context I yell at my radio.
</END VENT>

My Friend, are you 10-4? I 10-9 are you 10-4? What is with the 10-74 attitude? I urge you to use 10-0, this type of anger could cause a 10-15 or 10-16 which could cause the Law Enforcement to be 10-18 dispatched to your 10-20. And when they 10-23, this might have them in contact with a 10-96 they might find a 10-32. Then he would 10-78 which would result in a 10-93 of the area to keep others safe. Then they would notice the bottle of Jack Daniels on the ground and realize that not only did they have a 10-96,10-32; they had a 10-56, 10-96, 10-32. They would 10-5 that they were 10-75 with you and you were calming down. Soon after you followed instructions and officers were 10-26, they asked dispatch for 10-43 on possible 10-29 but that came back 10-74. They ran a 10-81 to see how much of a 10-56 you were. Then he would call dispatch and let them know he was 10-76 with the 10-56, 10-96, 10-32 who was 10-74 of 10-29 to the county jail.

(Use the list for the story above: http://spiffy.ci.uiuc.edu/~kline/Stuff/ten-codes.html )

[jhooten]

We had an officer fresh put of the academy arrive first on scene at a multiple vehicle with injuries and at least on pin in. He keyed the mic running of a string of 10 codes and signals, which our department didn't use, in a rushed but controlled tone of voice. The shift sergeant, not realizing he was holding the PTT on his mic down said for all the world to hear "What the F... did he say?" I had just come out of the Jail from booking in a DWI to find the dispatcher had fallen out of her chair from laughing so hard.

The good old days.

[N7YUO]

Where 10 codes are better than plain speech.
A UHP made a traffic stop, dispatch made a license check.
The check showed warrents and a history of assault on officers.
"Are you 10-84" (Visitors present?)
The trooper knows that he has a high risk situation.
Dispatch tells another trooper to switch channels,
and tells them to 10-78 the other trooper.

[JoeyC]

Originally Posted by N7YUO

Where 10 codes are better than plain speech.
A UHP made a traffic stop, dispatch made a license check.
The check showed warrents and a history of assault on officers.
"Are you 10-84" (Visitors present?)
The trooper knows that he has a high risk situation.
Dispatch tells another trooper to switch channels,
and tells them to 10-78 the other trooper.

Thats debatable.

The suspect, more likely than not knows he has outstanding warrants and certainly knows his history. It doesn't matter what comes out of the dispatchers mouth, 10-84, 10-66, Code 11, - the suspect already knows he's about to get busted not because he does or doesn't understand the code, but because he probably isn't so stupid to think they are discussing the weather when she/he returns with the troopers want check.

Want to say something and not have suspects, witnesses or looky loos present? Simply say, "clear your air", or "is your air secure?" or something to that effect.

A dispatcher that knows she/he is about to give info to a lone trooper in the field about a suspect with such a history should ensure that back up is present, on the way or the suspect is detained properly before airing it in the first place.

[Observer1]

Originally Posted by JoeyC

Thats debatable.

The suspect, more likely than not knows he has outstanding warrants and certainly knows his history. It doesn't matter what comes out of the dispatchers mouth, 10-84, 10-66, Code 11, - the suspect already knows he's about to get busted not because he does or doesn't understand the code, but because he probably isn't so stupid to think they are discussing the weather when she/he returns with the troopers want check.

Want to say something and not have suspects, witnesses or looky loos present? Simply say, "clear your air", or "is your air secure?" or something to that effect.

A dispatcher that knows she/he is about to give info to a lone trooper in the field about a suspect with such a history should ensure that back up is present, on the way or the suspect is detained properly before airing it in the first place.

So you're saying a suspect is smart enough to figure out a code, but won't bat an eyelash at "clear your air"? Makes no sense. Reality is you can predict anything.

The far more simple answer is found in officers who wear ear pieces. And most officers I know, in a traffic stop situation, are far more likely to just use their computer. Eliminates the problem of airing information and let's the officer ensure it is accurate.

[JoeyC]

Originally Posted by Observer1

So you're saying a suspect is smart enough to figure out a code, but won't bat an eyelash at "clear your air"?

I don't recall saying anything like that. Perhaps you should re-read what I said.

Originally Posted by Observer1

The far more simple answer is found in officers who wear ear pieces. And most officers I know, in a traffic stop situation, are far more likely to just use their computer. Eliminates the problem of airing information and let's the officer ensure it is accurate.

You would be correct about that.

[quarterwave]

Codes are leftover from a bygone era of keeping message short due to competition for and sharing the air....like when police were dispatched on HF.

In the spirit of interoperability and such...all agencies should use plain language today.

I live in one county and they cannot communicate with the next county up....we are UHF conventional, they are 800 trunked....neither has VHF simplex for interops (BAD IDEA to not have) and each uses a different set of codes. Alot of deputies cannot remember all their own codes, let alone the neighbor county's. (The county North of us does have a UHF control base tied to a talk group on their system, but they have to turn on the patch when THEY want it...so it's not an effective tool...plus the Sheriffs are opposite politics and they don't like each other.) Pure BS for my tax money, I can tell you that.