What's up with Longmont PD
- Thread starter Insulator
- Start date
- Status
Insulator
Member
Now for round 2--Longmont Times Call had a guest opinion today basically backing the editorial yesterday about LCD crawling under the rock with the "Big E". Soundchaser, could you please post the link for me.
Thanks.
Thanks.
soundchaser
Member
Insulator
Member
Longmont Times Call had an article regarding Longmont PD encryption. The City Council is looking into this.They want further info and I personally spoken with a City Council member regarding this.
Mark
Mark
snoopyII
Member
Maybe you could remind them that this is something you will remember next time they are up for re-election.
Insulator
Member
No, I didn't. Seems like the general consensus with Council is they are against what is going on. We'll see.
Longmont PD Encypted Trial
More details released on Longmont police scanner pilot program - Longmont Times-Call
Jim
More details released on Longmont police scanner pilot program - Longmont Times-Call
Jim
GlacierClipper
Member
Thanks for sharing the link!
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,620
To put some things in perspective from the other end of the radio...
Guys on the street, (depending on location) - really don't care or have the time to eavesdrop on other jurisdictions. For decades, agencies (regardless of function) operated on various radio bands and methods.
When I got my start, lowband was used by the state, we were on UHF and PD across the way was VHF. Town fire was lowband and UHF, EMS on VHF.
When the 800 system came out, the state went there, one town went LTR, etc.
Do you know how much of an issue it was for me to communicate to neighboring towns or the state for resources?
It wasn't.
It was a simple call on the phone or radio to radio link on a common analog radio channel (regional or statewide)
Accurate and timely information was never a problem, and helped to filter unnecessary information to the responding resources.
Life is much different on the radio on our side than on the scanner listeners side.
On scene, most departments can and do utilize their on incident channels. Not everyone needs to be on the same channel/talkgroup. That's what the unified incident command system is for. Not everyone needs to talk to the IC - and when everyone is operating on a single channel/talkgroup with various resources - that's when situations happen and things go south.
Now within a single agency incident - the above can and usually does happen. FDNY does an excellent job of this. To the causal listener, it seems like complete and utter chaos. For the members operating on at the scene, its not. Trust me it can be, but when you operate and train the same way - its SOP. See this example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0O68VS3Axw
Just not a multiagency/large/MCI incident. This is were IC discipline comes into play. Some are better at it than others.
As far as on air incidents/cover ups go - that's basically urban legends. I've never seen or been apart of, or aware of a time where over the radio, Joe Cop was telling his buddies that he just planted meth on Bob Badboy, shot the wrong person, or the such. Could it have happen? Always a possibility, especially when phone patches were available and people thought conversations were private.
But that day is essentially dead.
Public safety is well aware of scanners, and scanner apps. Social media persons (good/bad/indifferent intent) have recorded/transcribed and taken over the air information and purposely twisted or improperly conveyed the what was heard and caused harm in active investigations and safety.
I am personally aware of an incident in which a multiagency operation was going out to serve a search warrant at a narcotics lab. Everyone was to use a certain talkgroup that was secure. Prior to the operation, two town cops used a non-secure tac channel to coordinate coffee orders and essentially "hey before we go over to 123 Main street what do you want from dunkin donuts".
Bad guy heard that on his scanner app, left the property before they got there - and even left a note that said "better luck next time guys" on the front door. When he was caught later, that was all admitted.
OPSEC is something that some cops work well with, and others are just plain oops. With ENC options being so cheap these days and with no voice quality issues that SECURENET had, its hard for any chief to say "why not?"
When one of my agencies went to P25 (prior to P25 scanners), they offered every new agency the option to purchase a radio with certain talkgroups programmed into it so they could report the news.
If one feels as though your local agency running ENC is such an issue, as someone above did - contact your town elders, present a good solid argument (do use "well its my hobby and I have to listen to it" argument) - but something factual and can stand on its own - weighing the pro's and con's of all involved.
If they still decline, reach out to the government sunshine groups and state elected represent ivies and push the issue, and get as many people (who can form a good argument and not take other less than idea routes because they are pissed) onboard with it. I believe there was a rep in CO that was looking to introduce legislation limiting ENC for public safety, but I don't know the status of it.
In any case, radio comms are typically part of the open records act, and you can do a FOI request for the such, paying any reasonable expenses allowed by law for them to reproduce the radio transmissions. Of course anything that is subject to an active investigation and ongoing criminal prosecution would normally be exempt until the court case is finished or publically released.
Guys on the street, (depending on location) - really don't care or have the time to eavesdrop on other jurisdictions. For decades, agencies (regardless of function) operated on various radio bands and methods.
When I got my start, lowband was used by the state, we were on UHF and PD across the way was VHF. Town fire was lowband and UHF, EMS on VHF.
When the 800 system came out, the state went there, one town went LTR, etc.
Do you know how much of an issue it was for me to communicate to neighboring towns or the state for resources?
It wasn't.
It was a simple call on the phone or radio to radio link on a common analog radio channel (regional or statewide)
Accurate and timely information was never a problem, and helped to filter unnecessary information to the responding resources.
Life is much different on the radio on our side than on the scanner listeners side.
On scene, most departments can and do utilize their on incident channels. Not everyone needs to be on the same channel/talkgroup. That's what the unified incident command system is for. Not everyone needs to talk to the IC - and when everyone is operating on a single channel/talkgroup with various resources - that's when situations happen and things go south.
Now within a single agency incident - the above can and usually does happen. FDNY does an excellent job of this. To the causal listener, it seems like complete and utter chaos. For the members operating on at the scene, its not. Trust me it can be, but when you operate and train the same way - its SOP. See this example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0O68VS3Axw
Just not a multiagency/large/MCI incident. This is were IC discipline comes into play. Some are better at it than others.
As far as on air incidents/cover ups go - that's basically urban legends. I've never seen or been apart of, or aware of a time where over the radio, Joe Cop was telling his buddies that he just planted meth on Bob Badboy, shot the wrong person, or the such. Could it have happen? Always a possibility, especially when phone patches were available and people thought conversations were private.
But that day is essentially dead.
Public safety is well aware of scanners, and scanner apps. Social media persons (good/bad/indifferent intent) have recorded/transcribed and taken over the air information and purposely twisted or improperly conveyed the what was heard and caused harm in active investigations and safety.
I am personally aware of an incident in which a multiagency operation was going out to serve a search warrant at a narcotics lab. Everyone was to use a certain talkgroup that was secure. Prior to the operation, two town cops used a non-secure tac channel to coordinate coffee orders and essentially "hey before we go over to 123 Main street what do you want from dunkin donuts".
Bad guy heard that on his scanner app, left the property before they got there - and even left a note that said "better luck next time guys" on the front door. When he was caught later, that was all admitted.
OPSEC is something that some cops work well with, and others are just plain oops. With ENC options being so cheap these days and with no voice quality issues that SECURENET had, its hard for any chief to say "why not?"
When one of my agencies went to P25 (prior to P25 scanners), they offered every new agency the option to purchase a radio with certain talkgroups programmed into it so they could report the news.
If one feels as though your local agency running ENC is such an issue, as someone above did - contact your town elders, present a good solid argument (do use "well its my hobby and I have to listen to it" argument) - but something factual and can stand on its own - weighing the pro's and con's of all involved.
If they still decline, reach out to the government sunshine groups and state elected represent ivies and push the issue, and get as many people (who can form a good argument and not take other less than idea routes because they are pissed) onboard with it. I believe there was a rep in CO that was looking to introduce legislation limiting ENC for public safety, but I don't know the status of it.
In any case, radio comms are typically part of the open records act, and you can do a FOI request for the such, paying any reasonable expenses allowed by law for them to reproduce the radio transmissions. Of course anything that is subject to an active investigation and ongoing criminal prosecution would normally be exempt until the court case is finished or publically released.
Insulator
Member
Yesterday's Times Call article
I sent an email to the gal that wrote the article. I questioned how the Chief came up with 41 Colorado agencies that use E. Many have it for tac and drug enforcement but I counted roughly 15/16 that use it for primary dispatch. I joked to her that he must be blowing smoke you know where. I have another comment ready to go to the T-C after the first of the year. More to follow.
I sent an email to the gal that wrote the article. I questioned how the Chief came up with 41 Colorado agencies that use E. Many have it for tac and drug enforcement but I counted roughly 15/16 that use it for primary dispatch. I joked to her that he must be blowing smoke you know where. I have another comment ready to go to the T-C after the first of the year. More to follow.
Insulator
Member
Longmont had another officer involved shooting early this morning. I imagine that will be covered up like the last one.
milcom_chaser
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 979
Letters to the Major, City Council?
Insulator
Member
In todays Longmont Times Call, there was the article regarding Longmont PD and their encrypted pilot program ending this last week. It soulds like it will continue until all the data is analized. I would expect that it won't change. Media was provided radios. I going to contact my city councilman again and suggest that the transparency is now gone between the citizens and the department and city council should look at cleaning house from the Chief down.
scanlist
Scanning since the 70's to today.
Insulator
Member
Thankx scanlist for providing the link.
milcom_chaser
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 979
Spell check this? or did you mean to make a pun on words? "It soulds like it will continue until all the data is analized."
milcom_chaser
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 979
Insulator, glad you are calling them out to clear up this transparency issue. That incident with the person who highjacked a vehicle in Boulder, and the suspect fleeing into a neighborhood in Longmont after crashing it, is a huge red flag when the general public is not informed at least by the media for safety.
Insulator
Member
milcom_chaser thanks.
That pun was intentional. Thanks for bringing up the car chase incident last fall. Pd probably "forgot" this incident putting potential lives in danger during this situation during them wanting to justify E. Makes me feel safer. HaHa. To bad the citizens of Longmont don't wake up to this fact.
That pun was intentional. Thanks for bringing up the car chase incident last fall. Pd probably "forgot" this incident putting potential lives in danger during this situation during them wanting to justify E. Makes me feel safer. HaHa. To bad the citizens of Longmont don't wake up to this fact.
scanlist
Scanning since the 70's to today.
New Times-Call Editorial from former Longmont City Manager Gordon Pedrow.
Will Longmont residents be safer with police silence?
.
Will Longmont residents be safer with police silence?
.
nbdyspclk
Member
A thought here[emoji848][emoji848][emoji848]with our tax dollars paying for EVERY piece of equipment,making it PUBLIC meaning the constitute has the say,not locals making decisions under color of government.[emoji849]could be wrong.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
- Status
