Benefits of Local Policing

Since John C. White was appointed city marshal in 1910, Gulfport has had its own officers patrolling the city. Some are wondering if that’s soon to change. In case you haven’t heard the news, St. Pete Beach residents recently voted by an approximate 60/40 margin to allow the city commission to contract law enforcement services to an outside agency. As that vote was taking place, the Gulfport City Council directed its city attorney to draft an ordinance that would strengthen the standing of the police department in Gulfport. With all this going on, lots of people have been asking for my opinion. I thought I would make it easy and just put my thoughts here on the old blog.

First, we should ask why there are so many local police departments in the first place. This kind of arrangement is fairly unique to the United States. Most other countries rely on national or regional police agencies. Here, the founding fathers made it clear that they wanted as much control as possible to be in the hands of the smallest governments possible. They wanted the people, and not the big governments, to have the power. This was the birth of the home rule concept, and local police departments are the most visible embodiment of its application.

“Home Rule” means that the elected body of government for a municipality gets to independently (within the law) determine the direction and application of its resources. The input of the council and administration on these subjects directly affects the well-being of the residents, as well as the reputation of the city as a whole. When it comes to the police department, here are some examples of precisely what that means:

• Professionalism—Is the law enforcement agency accredited? What are the officer selection standards in terms of education, background, etc? What is the commitment to training employees
• Operational risk—What sort of weapons do the officers use-rifles, tazers, chemicals, rubber bullets? To what extent are officers permitted to use intermediate weapons? What is the vehicle pursuit policy?
• Tolerance—what are the enforcement priorities, and how strictly are laws and local regulations enforced?

Regardless of which agency provides law enforcement service, the above factors affect the reputation of the city as a whole. For example, visitors will recall how they are treated by the law enforcement during their trip to Gulfport, and it will not matter what the patch on the uniform says (many won’t even notice or recall). The reputation of the agency has a direct and powerful effect on the reputation of the city, and when the law enforcement services are outsourced, the city has little influence over the agency’s reputation. 

Aside from these broad and far-reaching aspects, maintaining a local police department has more tangible and direct benefits to the residents, businesses, and visitors in the community. Here are some examples:

• The chief of police is involved in the community. When I spend hours every week engaging with residents, business owners, and community leaders, and when I routinely participate in community events, I build on a nearly twenty year history of direct involvement with Gulfport. That translates directly into how I set priorities and policies for the entire agency. 
• Because I serve as the chief of the Gulfport Police Department and not simply as a command officer from another agency, I have the power to influence other decision-making entities directly on behalf of the residents of Gulfport. I hold influential positions on the Pinellas Police Standards Council, Tampa Bay Area Chiefs of Police Association, Florida Police Chiefs Association, and law enforcement accreditation authorities. In these capacities, I help to ensure that state and regional policies and best practices are established and maintained with representation from OUR city.
• Gulfport police officers have an average tenure that fluctuates between eight and ten years IN THE CITY. This means that they have extensive knowledge of the people, places, and politics that influence day to day life in the city. This knowledge gives them a tremendous advantage in recognizing problems, setting response and enforcement priorities, identifying criminal perpetrators, recovering stolen property, and more.
• The people have direct and efficient access to decision-making authorities. Those with complaints or concerns can easily meet with the chief of police to share ideas or request a grievance. My time is committed to the City of Gulfport and the city’s residents are always my priority.
• The people have more influence over decision-making authorities. Decisions about policy, personnel actions, equipment, training, and every other aspect of police operations are made entirely by local officials whose interests lie with Gulfport’s 13,000 residents and not the other 986,000 residents of the county. When a resident comes to my office to express a concern, I take into consideration how my response and concurrent decision will affect Gulfport, understanding that my job is subject to the wishes of the people of Gulfport and not Palm Harbor, for example.

Readers should not take away from this message any disparaging or negative opinions of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office or any other law enforcement agency. Sheriff Gualtieri runs an outstanding agency with men and women dedicated to professionalism and service to the residents of Pinellas. My message in this blog post is simply to explain that there are many powerful benefits for a city to maintain its own independent law enforcement.

Before I close, I would like to thank the council and city manager for maintaining a working relationship that allows and encourages me to share my thoughts and ideas directly and publicly in a forum such as this. I’ve learned from colleagues that this is often not the case. 

As always, I do welcome and encourage your feedback.

Pursuit Review

On July 9th, 2012, Gulfport officers were involved in a motor vehicle pursuit that ended when a fleeing criminal drove in front of a bus near the Jordan Park housing complex. From the scene of the crash, I told news reporters that I would thoroughly review the pursuit and that I would also review the policy. I have completed the pursuit review, and I have copied and pasted the text of my report here for all to see (see below). I am doing this because I feel it is important to be completely candid with those we serve.

As far as the review of the policy, I want to make one thing very clear: I have no intention of prohibiting my officers from using every reasonable means available to apprehend auto thieves. This has historically been a crime that has victimized many of our residents, and I believe I echo the community's concerns when I say that our police department should not have a standing policy that prohibits intervention and lets these criminals get away scott free.

The current rules allow pursuits to be INITIATED when an officer has reason to believe the driver of a vehicle has committed a forcible felony, which includes the offense of burglary. The suspect must ALSO exhibit conduct which indicates he or she is an immediate or continuous threat to public safety. The pursuit may be allowed to CONTINUE based on constant review of road & traffic conditions, speed, additional violations, and many other factors. At any point, a supervisor may order that a pursuit be terminated.

Other aspects of the policy may very well be subject to revision. For example, I will likely be adding a component that requires pursuing officers to take into consideration their lack of familiarity with a neighborhood in deciding whether or not to continue a pursuit. I will also be talking with other local agencies to discuss improvement of procedures for interagency operations when pursuits cross into other jurisdictions.

The pursuit review noted four minor violations of agency policy. This is not out of the ordinary. A pursuit is a highly-stressful and rapidly-changing situation that is subject to many and various detailed procedures. It is rare that a pursuit review indicates no violations at all. In this case, despite the minor violations, I believe the officers did a commendable job.

Text of the pursuit review report follows:

Memorandum

GULFPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT

                                                                                     

To:             File

From:        Chief Vincent

Date:         7/12/12

Re:             Pursuit Review (GP12-13323)

                                                                                                                            

Written Directive 104-A requires an administrative review of all pursuits for the purpose of identifying any violations of policy.  This document is my review of a pursuit that occurred on the evening of 7/9/12. Note—pursuit reviews are normally conducted by the operations commander; since Lt. Stone was actively involved in the pursuit, I am doing it to avoid any conflict of interest.

Summary

On 7/9/12, Officer Kellington identified a stolen vehicle and initiated a traffic stop in the area of Gulfport Blvd. and 51^st Street. The driver of the vehicle (later apprehended and identified as Derrick Mims) accelerated and took evasive action. Officer Kellington initiated a pursuit that was joined by Officer Iwanowski, Officer Cavanah, and Lieutenant Stone. The pursuit left the city of Gulfport at 11^th Avenue and 49^th Street South and then remained in the City of St. Petersburg until it ended in a crash approximately 15 minutes later. At one point, Officer Iwanowski took the lead in the pursuit, and they lost sight of the suspect vehicle shortly after. Officer Cavanah then immediately acquired the vehicle and re-initiated the pursuit. The vehicle entered the interstate at 5^th Avenue North and I-375, then it merged onto I-275 before exiting at the 28^th Street South exit. Upon approaching the Jordan Park neighborhood, the vehicle crashed into a southbound PSTA bus at the intersection of 11^th Avenue South and 25^th Street. Mims was not seriously injured; one unidentified passenger fled from the scene; the front-seat passenger was seriously injured; and a male toddler was discovered in the vehicle, also apparently uninjured. The PSTA bus left the roadway following the crash and struck an apartment building on the southeast corner. The building was unoccupied at the time. One occupant of the bus was transported to the hospital for possible injuries. St. Petersburg Police will be completing the traffic crash investigation and report.

Policy Requirements

Police department written directive 104-A regulates pursuits.  The following is a list of required actions (in italics), followed by my conclusion for each action.

1. Only sworn personnel may be involved in the pursuit:

The following personnel were involved in the pursuit; all are sworn officers and none had passengers in their vehicles:

Officer Jesse Kellington, Officer Eva Iwanowski, Officer David Cavanah, Lt. Joshua Stone

2. Officer has reasonable grounds to believe suspect committed a forcible felony AND either imminent or continued threat to the public:

The officers’ pursuit was based on evidence that the driver committed at least one (likely more) forcible felony and that his driving behavior constituted an imminent threat to public safety. The conditions warranted a pursuit in accordance with this provision of the policy.

3. Only primary and up to two officers to be engaged in active pursuit unless directed by a supervisor; vehicle will maintain a safe following distance:

Officer Kellington was initially the primary pursuit unit, and he was followed at safe distances by Officer Cavanah, and Lieutenant Stone. Later, Officer Iwanowski joined the pursuit, increasing the number of actively-involved units to four. Officer Iwanowski should not have become actively involved, but upon seeing that she did so, Lieutenant Stone, who was driving an unmarked vehicle that is not intended by its manufacturer for use in police pursuits, should have relinquished his involvement to her.

4. No units not involved in the pursuit will leave area of assigned responsibility unless directed to do so by a supervisor:

Only those units involved in the pursuit left their assigned areas of responsibility.

5. Initiating Officer to inform dispatch that a pursuit is taking place and to provide dispatch with vehicle license plate, description, direction of travel:

Officer Kellington immediately notified dispatch that he was in pursuit, and he provided all of the required information.

6. Primary officer to continuously monitor and evaluate road & traffic conditions, speed, weather:

See notes under #13 below.

7. Officer to develop and implement a plan to terminate the pursuit
1. PIT only by officers trained to do so
2. Roadblocks are prohibited

Approximately two minutes into the pursuit, Officer Kellington indicated his intent to attempt a PIT maneuver. This was unsuccessful. Approximately two minutes later, when it was clear the suspect vehicle was pulling away from him, Officer Kellington requested air support. Approximately two minutes later, a Pinellas County sheriff’s deputy indicated he would be setting a spike strip in the path of the pursuit. The suspect vehicle turned prior to this point, however. There was never an opportunity to set up a box-in. It was clear that the plan was to arrange visual contact by air support and then terminate the pursuit, but the helicopter did not establish contact before the suspect vehicle crashed.

8. Police vehicle to have lights and siren activated continuously

All police vehicles continuously had lights and sirens activated during the pursuit.

9. Unmarked vehicle to relinquish to marked vehicle

At one point during the pursuit, Officer Iwanowski passed Officer Kellington and took the lead role while Kellington slowed for traffic congestion. She maintained this role until losing sight of the suspect vehicle and did not relinquish the lead position despite the fact that she was operating an unmarked patrol car.

10. Officer may not pursue the wrong way on a divided roadway

Neither the suspect vehicle nor any of the pursuing vehicles ever drove the wrong way on a divided highway.

11. Officer to continuously update communications center of the progress of the pursuit

Officer Kellington provided continuous updates regarding speed, direction of travel, road and traffic conditions, etc.

When Officer Cavanah re-initiated the pursuit, he also continuously provided updated information.

12. Officer must abandon pursuit under any of the following:
1. When ordered to do so by a supervisor
2. Upon losing visual contact with the violator
3. Upon losing radio contact with the communications center
4. When the threat to public safety no longer exists

Officers Iwanowski and Kellington abandoned their pursuit upon losing visual contact with the violator. Officer Cavanah never lost sight of the vehicle once he re-initiated the pursuit. None of the other circumstances occurred during this pursuit.

13. Officer to give strong consideration to abandoning pursuit under any of the following:
1. Pursuit enters congested area and creates unreasonable hazard to the public
2. Visibility, road, or weather conditions limit the probability of a safe and successful conclusion to the pursuit.
3. The violator can be identified to the point that later apprehension can be made
4. Aircraft has visual contact with the violator

Items B-C were never factors in this pursuit. There were three points at which it is evident the pursuit   entered a congested area where abandonment may have been considered. However, the pursuit went through these areas and back into uncongested areas each time. The brevity of these instances was such that the increased risk was over before abandonment could have occurred.

The first point at which abandonment would have been appropriate was when the suspect vehicle approached the Jordan Park housing complex. However, the fleeing vehicle crashed BEFORE it entered the complex, and there was insufficient time for Officer Cavanah to recognize and evaluate the conditions. It should be noted that he is not familiar with that neighborhood and was unaware that the route of the fleeing vehicle was leading to the housing complex.

14. All officers to continuously operate vehicles in a safe and prudent manner:

Evidence indicates Officer Iwanowski was at one point travelling at 100 miles per hour on 1^st Avenue South and near 28^th Street North. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. At this point, she was trying to catch up to the pursuit that already had Officer Kellington, Officer Cavanah, and Lieutenant Stone actively involved. Such speed was not justified in consideration of the fact that there were already three officers (maximum allowed under the policy) in active pursuit.

It should be noted that, although not justified, Officer Iwanowski’s speed at this point did not in itself constitute unsafe driving. Firs Avenue is a multi-lane, one-way street with timed signals and clear visibility. Traffic at the time was not congested.

At all other points during the pursuit, officers operated their vehicles in a reasonably safe manner.

15. Officer must complete a pursuit form and a report  before the end of the tour of duty

The pursuit form and reports from all officers involved were submitted in a timely manner.

16. Patrol supervisor decides whether pursuit should remain on primary channel or switch to alternate channel

The decision was made to keep the channel on Patrol-1 and restrict that channel to the units involved in the pursuit.

17. Supervisor to assume command of and constantly evaluate pursuit and maintain communication with pursuing officer(s):

There was some confusion as to who had responsibility for command. Sgt. Farrand was in charge of the patrol squad and is Officer Kellington’s immediate supervisor. However, since Lt. Stone was on duty and actively involved in the pursuit, she was of the opinion he was assuming command. This confusion actually had no bearing on the pursuit, as both supervisors indicated they continuously monitored the conditions and felt no reason to order the pursuit terminated.

18. Supervisor to verify proper number of officers involved in the pursuit, proper radio frequency used, affected jurisdictions notified:

See notes on #3 above.

19. Supervisor to respond to the scene of termination of pursuit if injuries result:

The pursuit ended in a crash that resulted in injuries. Both Lt. Stone and Sgt. Farrand responded to the scene.

20. Notify on-call lieutenant, dependant on time of day, if pursuit leaves the city of Gulfport

Lt. Stone was involved in the pursuit, and he did contact me (Chief Vincent) at the conclusion of the pursuit.

21. The supervisor shall complete a report and forward to division commander:

Lt. Stone’s report was completed and submitted in a timely manner.

Reviewer’s Actions

My review consisted of the following actions:

1. I observed the video from the police cruisers involved in the pursuit (evidence).
2. I reviewed and obtained copies of the relevant offense report.
3. I reviewed and obtained a copy of the radio transmissions (evidence).
4. I reviewed GPS records for vehicles involved in the pursuit.

Policy Violations

Based on the above determinations, I have determined that the following violations of policy occurred during this pursuit:

Officer Iwanowski:

Written Directive 104-A.10—regarding the requirement for officers operating unmarked vehicles to relinquish close pursuit as soon as possible.

Written Directive 104.10—regarding the requirement to operate police vehicles with due regard for the safety of all persons (noting the unjustified speed on 1^st Avenue South)

Lieutenant Stone:

Written Directive 104-A.113—regarding the limitations on units actively involved in a pursuit. Lieutenant Stone should have either terminated his own involvement (preferable since he was operating an unmarked, non-pursuit vehicle) or ordered another officer to terminate involvement.

Written Directive 104-A.10(B)—regarding the prohibition of using vehicles not marketed by their manufacturer for use in pursuits. Lt. Stone was driving a Ford Fusion administrative vehicle which is not designed or intended for use in pursuit driving conditions.

Conclusions

Despite the minor violations noted, the overall performance of the officers in this pursuit was commendable. They exhibited excellent teamwork, good communications skills, and they operated their vehicles in a reasonably safe manner as they made every effort to apprehend a dangerous felon. At the conclusion of the pursuit, they acted appropriately to secure suspects and get medical attention for the injured while coordinating with other agencies for crowd control.

With the exception of the unjustified speeds in the case of Officer Iwanowski (which will result in a notice of counseling), the corrective action regarding the noted violations will be in the form of training that takes place during an after-action discussion that I will personally facilitate.

I also noted during this review that the GPS device in Officer Cavanah’s vehicle was apparently not working during the pursuit. This vehicle (#102) is not normally assigned to him, and he had reported to Sergeant Farrand upon learning that the GPS was not working. I have asked Lieutenant Stone to develop better procedures for more quickly identifying and correcting faulty technology in patrol vehicles. His recommendations are due by 7/30/12.

Thank You Gulfport Businesses

If you've been at the police station recently, you might have noticed our collection of crime prevention publications has improved. We just acquired hundreds of new booklets and pamphlets containing important information on today's most crucial issues (child Internet safety, prescription drug abuse, teenage alcoholism, bicycle safety, and many more).

These publications are produced by LAW Publications, a Texas-based company that specializes in public safety handout material. In addition to making these items available in our lobby, we work with local schools and other community organizations to get them in the hands of those who need them most. Officers also keep a supply in their patrol cars so they can give them to crime victims and other who may be in need.

Such resources, of course, are not cheap, and that is where the title of this blog post comes in. You see, the production of these handouts is based entirely on donations from local businesses. Were it not for their support, this free blog might be the only publication we put out.

Thank you to the following local businesses for helping with this effort:

A-Able Locksmiths, Inc.

5116 Gulfport Blvd

Gulfport, Fl 33707

Can San's

2838 Beach Blvd

Gulfport, Fl 33707

Gulfport Garage, Inc.

2731 Beach Blvd South

Gulfport, Fl 33707

Gulfport Hardware

5006 Gulfport Blvd

Gulfport, Fl 33707

Gulfport Paint Shop, Inc.

1801 49th Street South

Gulfport, FL 33707

Gulfport Veterinarian Hospital

5621 Gulfport Blvd South

Gulfport, FL 33707

Neptune Grill LLC

5501 Shore Blvd South

Gulfport, Fl 33707

Reef Dog, Inc.

2820 Beach blvd

Gulfport, Fl 33707

The Apothecary of Gulfport

2908 Beach Blvd South

Gulfport, FL 33707

The Car Doctor

1099 49th Street

Gulfport, Fl

The Gabber

1419 49th Street South

Gulfport, Fl 33707

Tri J Towing

125-19th Street

St. Pete, Fl 33712

Cops Are Not Above the Law

A recently-published series in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel highlighted several examples of police officers driving at excessive speeds for apparently no legitimate purpose. Their measurements were based on time-over-distance calculations from toll-transponders assigned to take-home police vehicles. In many of the incidents, it appeared the officers were simply commuting to and from work. Speeds were frequently 20-30 miles per hour above the posted limits.

I applaud the police chiefs who have vowed to investigate and discipline officers found to have broken the rules. The fact is that we in law enforcement bear the responsibility of earning the trust and respect of the public; we can't do that by breaking the very rules we expect the public to abide by. Traffic rules are no exception.

To help ensure we are doing our part in Gulfport, we have some policies and procedures in place. These practices hold the police officers accountable to an even higher degree than the general public, which is--in my opinion--exactly how it should be.

1. It is the policy of the Gulfport Police Department to issue a uniform traffic citation to any officer found to be at fault in a traffic crash that meets the reporting requirements under Florida law. This is actually not a common practice among law enforcement agencies. Many defer to administrative discipline, but my position is that every other driver who is at fault in a crash will face some form of consequence other than the traffic ticket; why should cops be any different?

2. Police vehicles and operators are not exempt from our red light photo enforcement program. An officer caught running a light must either pay the violation (and face discipline) or document the circumstances that made the action lawful and justified.

3. All patrol and most other police vehicles are tracked by GPS when moving. Police commanders run periodic reports to check speeds of vehicles to determine if there are issues. Any speeds above the established enforcement thresholds (the same ones applied to the public) can result in disciplinary proceedings unless the officer can document the circumstances that made the action lawful and justified.

If you see one of my police vehicles breaking traffic laws, I want to know about it. Call 893-1030 right away and ask to speak to the supervisor on duty. If you're not satisfied with the results, contact me personally.

Red Light Camera Update

In February, Gulfport implemented an intersection safety program using photo enforcement of red light violations. The goal of the program was to reduce traffic crashes, most particularly those involving injuries.

I am happy to report after nine months of operation that the effort appears to be producing very successful results. Overall crashes have decreased over 26%, and injury crashes have decreased over 46% when compared to the same time period in 2010.

Details are available on this Power Point that was presented to the city council last night:

http://www.mediafire.com/?7ddj5m56g607dhk

Busy Busy

I noticed it has been almost two months since my last blog post. Wow, so much for once a week!

Seems we've been quite busy here lately. Rather than write up a separate post on each subject, I thought I'd just give the highlights here, all in one place.

Communications Transition

Since Council approved the budget with the provision to outsource police communications, we have been working dilligently to make sure the transition is smooth and effective. Before we did anything else, we conducted a staff review of proposals from St. Petersburg and from the Pinellas County Sheriff. Although it was close, the sheriff's proposal got the staff recommendation.

I have appointed Sergeant Josh Stone to supervise the transition, and he began by attending a meeting with sheriff's command and operational staff to address important issues and establish a timeline. We are now in the process of converting GPD historical data so that it will be accessible via the new systems. Training sessions for all personnel have been scheduled, and IT folks are pouring over the hardware and software to ensure we have everything in place that we will need.

The goal is to go live on the new system on January 1, 2012.

Fitness Testing

You have likely heard that police officers will soon be tested for compliance with fitness standards. This has been a long time coming, and the process of developing the policy was very involved and meticulous. We plan to concuct the first test before the end of the year, and officers will be required to comply with the standards within nine months following that first test.

The standards consist of various exercises, including two 220-yard runs, running an obstacle course twice (climbing over a low wall, jumping hurdles of various sizes, and low-crawling for eight feet), and dragging a 150 lb. dummy 100 feet. Officers must complete the test within approximately six minutes. Since all officers must meet this standard in order to be hired in the first place, I don't think we'll have any trouble now.

New Police Cars

This is the first year in as long as I can remember that the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor has not been an available option. Combined with that are the addition of some new models and some serious changes in a few others. The array of choices has made the selection process much more time consuming this year.

Ford replaced the CVPI with a Taurus-based vehicle in either front or all wheel drive and with an optional 365 horsepower, turborchaged engine. Chevrolet swapped the motor in its front-drive police Impala, so it now puts out over 300 horsepower as well. They also added a new car to the fleet--a police only Caprice, which is a rear-drive car with an optional 355 horsepower V-8. Then there is the Dodge Charger, which has been the GPD staple for several years now.  The V-8 Charger continues to lead the pack in terms of performance and interior room, and it cost less than the comparable alternatives. Our conclusion this year was that we will once again replace the aging cars in our fleet with new Chargers.

Professional Affiliations

In addition to the projects and cases that are specific to Gulfport, I have also become very involved in my professional organizations. I see this as very beneficial to the community, as this involvement means access to law and policy makers, funding opportunities, and many other resources to help address problems we encounter every day.

For 2011/2012, I am the chair of the Pinellas Police Standards Council, which is the body designated by the legislature to establish and maintain law enforcement standards for Pinellas County. The group consists of all police chiefs, the sheriff, and the state attorney.

In addition, I have been serving since 2010 as the secretary and treasurer of the Tampa Bay Area Chiefs of Police Association. This is a professional networking group involving law enforcement executives from all agencies in the seven counties in the Tampa Bay region. In my capacity, I vett and diseminate all correspondence between members and the board to ensure that all are kept up to date on legislation, case law, and operational issues related to the field.


So  you can see that, while crime continues to decline, we have plenty to keep us busy in providing quality service to the citizens of Gulfport. If you know of anything we may have missed, or if there is anything you'd like me to look into, please don't hesitate to let me know.

More Perspective on Outsourcing Dispatch

This week, I visited the two largest law enforcement communications centers in Pinellas County with the goal of seeking a better understanding of how calls are processed. I had last visited these facilities some 18 years ago, and although I've toured several others throughout the state in my experience as an accreditation assessor, the other local centers had escaped my attention.


In a previous post, I highlighted some areas where I felt service was likely to be reduced if Gulfport were to outsource communications to another agency. After my experiences this week, some of my concerns have been tempered, if not alleviated, so I thought it appropriate to share what I learned. Before we go there, however, I think it's important to clarify how calls are currently handled at GPD.


The Gulfport communications center is staffed 24/7 by one person. This one person is responsible for every aspect of police communications, including answering all incoming calls, entering and maintaining the computer aided dispatch (CAD) logs for all officer activity, as well as conducting wants/warrants checks, driver license status checks, and criminal history inquiries. In most larger agencies, these functions are handled by different people. In a typical arrangement, a call-taker answers the phone and collects the information from callers. As the call-taker inputs this information into the computer, it is sent to another person--a dispatcher--who then sends the police officers to the calls. Yet another person is responsible for conducting the database inquiries.


Some of the things I learned during my trips this week:

• Both Sheriff Coats and Chief Deputy Gualtieri have verbally agreed to offer employment to all four communications dispatchers who would lose their Gulfport jobs in the transition. Previously, this had only been a likely possibility. Should somebody other than Gualtieri be appointed to replace Coats when he retires, I will seek the same commitment from that individual.
• Calls made to 893-1030 (GPD's non-emergency number) would be forwarded to an internal administrative phone that is answered by an individual switchboard operator or call-taker. Previously, I had assumed Gulfport callers would be directed to the automated phone system.
• Previously, I had suggested that the lack of geographic familiarity might cause a delayed response. This was based on the assumption that a call-taker could not create a call ticket without knowing the location of the incident. Without a call-ticket, the dispatcher would not even be aware of the call. I learned that the physical proximity of call-takers and dispatchers is actually such that information can be exchanged face to face when necessary. This means that, even without an address, a call-taker can tell a dispatcher to send officers to "a prowler at the red brick church" for example.
• I also expressed concern that Gulfport calls might be delayed as dispatchers prioritize them in a queue with calls from other locations in south Pinellas County. While this still holds true, my concerns were mitigated by the fact that the computer system allows field officers to see pending calls even before they are dispatched. This means that the officers will be able to initiate a response even if the dispatcher hasn't gotten to sending them yet.

As a result of my visits to these other facilities, I am comfortable that the above issues no longer merit concern. Also since my last post, I have reported to elected officials that there are several benefits associated with local outsourcing of communications. I felt it would be appropriate to include them here as well:

• GPD officers would have direct and immediate communications access to officers or deputies working in adjoining areas. This means that any information transmitted via radio would instantly be received by all those working on that designated channel.
• GPD officers would have direct and immediate access to the other agency’s records database. Currently, checking this data requires additional, time-consuming steps.
• There would be increased interaction and familiarity between GPD officers and those working in surrounding jurisdictions. This would enhance our ability to use eachother’s resources for problem-oriented policing initiatives.

Alleviated concerns and benefits aside, there are still three negative impacts that are unavoidable should outsourcing come to pass.

1. We will no longer be able to use the holding facility. In the last twelve months, we detained 131 people in our holding cells. The reasons are many and varied, but most often it is because a more in-depth interview is required. In such a case, the officer will secure the prisoner in a holding cell, and while the dispatcher monitors the video feed, the officer will prepare for the interview. These interviews are complicated matters which require careful planning, including reviewing reports and criminal history, preparing forms, setting up recording devices, etc. If we cannot use the holding facility, then it will take two officers each and every time an interview is needed. One will have to wait with the prisoner in the patrol car (which is much less safe and secure) while the investigating officer takes time to prepare for the interview. The only alternative would be for the investigating officer to drive 40 minutes each way to conduct his or her interview at the county jail, where the prisoner will have had time to consult with others about his or her case.
2. We will no longer be able to let people into the building during after hours emergencies. Although we don't keep logs on how often this happens, I can assure you that it does happen. People, especially crime victims, do not feel safe standing outside the building waiting for an officer to respond. Some have said that people can go to the fire station in such situations, but that is not a realistic alternative. When they are on a call, the station is empty. At night, the firefighters are asleep in a bunk-room where they may not be likely to hear a knock on the door. Even then, it takes time to wake up, get to the door, and figure out what's going on before deciding to let somebody in. For their own safety, we can't expect firefighters to let just anybody into their building in the middle of the night.
3. When it comes to quality control, we will become customers instead of bosses. In the event of questionable conduct on the part of communications staff, my role will be limited. Instead of making a decision and taking corrective action, I will have to contact a supervisor at the other agency and make a complaint. At that point, the matter will be out of my hands.

So there you have it, a thorough and up-to-date analysis of the pros and cons associated with local outsourcing of police communications. As this issue has been debated in recent weeks, I have done by best to maintain a neutral role. My job as a professional is to provide factual information to the elected officials and the public. To the extent that I have an opinion, it would be inappropriate to allow it to affect any decisions that are made. Those of you who have concerns are invited to contact your elected representatives before they vote at the upcoming budget hearings.