LEO Response to Bogus 911?

[Ashkelon]

I have had this happen at my home.

Approx 6:30 on a Sunday morning an IMPD officer was at my door in the middle of winter stating there was an incomplete 911 call.

I was adamant that we had not called as the rest of my family was in bed. He said he just needed to make sure everything was OK in the home.
I told him everything was fine. He asked who else was in the home and I told him my wife and son.

I told him since I was already up he might as well come in and have a cup of coffee with me since he went to the trouble to make the run.
He simply laughed and said nevermind and told me to have a good day. Then he left. Just that simple.

You have to remember that 911 is a pretty screwed up service. The operators are usually morons with little to no training. I'm sure there are some good ones but for the most part it is a low paying low functioning job.

I have been advised by one of the brass on IMPD that the number is around 13 percent of calls don't get logged or completed properly. That is a significant margin of error.

Rule of thumb: Be nice to the officer that shows up. You never know when you may need them for real. They are simply responding to the dispatch.

 

[T-rav]

Ya thats nice, the OP asks a question & six people post BS posts that do nothing but clutter up this already cluttered forum.
IMO, anyone that posts that utterly rediculous "IBTL" post in someones thread should have it deleted as well as have an infraction towards them. not to mention the ones that post" oh no not another post on this" IF YOU DONT HAVE ANY THING TO ADD TO THE OPS POST, THEN DONT POST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now to answer your question Doug, Im going to go with A, I think the LEOs would tell you a 911 call is reason to see if everything is OK in your home, Im not saying i agree with this, but from my 911 experiences that is what will happen

So rather than ripping everyone shouldn't you of just responded to the OP's question?? Do us a favor if you think this forum is already cluttered help save us some space. This forums is VERY useful and helpful to 7,000+ people. We have a search button thats why it is there to search before you post.

 

[22lr]

911 hangups can be serious business, and should be treated as such. The cops dont know if you tried dialing and have a gun pointed at your back, or if your 3 year old was playing with the phone. I think they have a duty to visually make sure you are under no threat. Just saying that I would kinda be ticked if they didnt ask me to step outside and talk for a few minutes or something.

I remember our house had one were the Officer entered the house hand on his gun. Granted the garage door was open (carrying stuff out) so it probably really looked like something was going on. Response to 911 is the only reason its a crime deterrent, they need to take it serious because someone could be in real trouble.

Anyone remember the day when you knew your local cop and could slip him a code if something was wrong. Since that is rare in today's world I think its better for them to at least check and make sure you arnt in any danger.

FYI, if they enter your house under the premise of a 911 hangup and try to arrest you for something they see, there is a plan of action. Get a lawyer, request the 911 call, when none shows up, sit back and have a beer while you enjoy the multiple million dollar settlement. Know how to fight the system if you need to, but let the cops do their job.

 

[Doug]

Hey guys!
I posted a question. Somebody thought it was redundant. I explained why I posted and said I was sorry if anybody was annoyed.
I see no need to throw barbs back and forth.

As Reginald Denney said, "Can't...can't we all just get along?"

(If you don't know who Reginald Denney was, ask some old person about the Los Angeles' riots.)

Doug

Oh, BTW, thanks for all the good and thoughtful replies.

 

[LEaSH]

Here's a better spin:

If you have an alarm system (monitored) and it sends a silent alarm to the cops that it was activated, what are the odds he's not coming in?

PS don't ever ask if they are sure they don't want to call for back-up. Because they will and it will be a PITA.

 

[public servant]

As Reginald Denney said, "Can't...can't we all just get along?"

Rodney King

 

[Benny]

Rodney King

Haha, it was definitely Rodney King, but I'm sure poor ol' Denney was thinking it.

 

[Doug]

Oh, man, I sure blew that one. I must be getting senile when I can't tell the victim of the riot from the cause of the riot.:dumbass:
Please forget I ever posted on that.

Doug

 

[Whosyer]

We had a phone in our shop at the farm, that would dial 411 and 911 due to corrosion on the line. The shop and my brothers house shared a line.Before we found out the problem, it drove the LEO's crazy. It also kind of freaked me out to have 911 calls coming from the empty house of my recently departed brother. I think there were 4 0r 5 911 calls, and hundreds of 411 calls, before we found out what the deal was.

Was that a thread jack? sorta? sorry.

 

[Indy317]

These cases are best answered by researching what has already been ruled on by the courts. Here are some links to some case rulings. Basically, the court will be take _everything_ into consideration:
-Did the caller say anything?
-Did the dispatcher hear any yelling?
-Did the officers hear anything while walking up to/around the home?
-Did the neighbors hear anything?
-Will anyone answer the door?

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10230902tac.pdf

Larry J. Leaf, Individually and As Personal Representative of the Estate of John P. Leaf, Deceased, Martha A. Leaf, John P. Leaf, et al., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Ronald Shelnutt, Defendant-appellant - 400 F.3d 1070 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases

15 The district court denied summary judgment on what it called "UNLAWFUL ENTRY AND SEARCH." R.219 at 12. The court determined that exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry into Mr. Leaf's apartment. However, the court found that the way in which the officers entered may have violated the Constitution. The court explained that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement personnel to knock on the door of a private dwelling and to announce both their identity and their purpose before entering. R.219 at 12-14. The district court found that Deputies Shelnutt and Jacobs had announced their presence, but the court found that a question of fact existed as to whether Deputy Jacobs had announced, " We will be searching the apartment," prior to entering. R.219 at 14. The court also found that a question of fact existed regarding whether, once inside the apartment, Deputy Shelnutt behaved in an objectively unreasonable manner by searching the apartment and not announcing his identity. R.219 at 16-17. Therefore, the district court denied Deputy Shelnutt's motion for summary judgment on the illegal search claims.


Do you have to answer the door? If you don't, can police just make entry? Again, depends on the circumstances:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04200902mgr.pdf