Mount Pleasant DC Forum

[Robert Walton]

My wife woke me up late at night on May 19, saying she thought a woman was being raped in the alley behind our apartment. I jumped out of bed and looked out the window, and thought I saw exactly what she was describing - - a man on top of a woman, both partially clothed, the woman slurring-crying in Spanish.

I grabbed the phone and the man began getting up. He and the woman did eventually stumble off together, obviously drunk (she more than he, I think). I began to think what I witnessed, if it was rape, would most likely be date rape.

Aside from being on hold with 911 - something which I have heard is all too common - the communications problems which followed were horrible. Let me describe my five calls to the D.C. Police. I am, still, unsure what I should have done differently, if anything

(1) In my initial 911 call, I described what I thought was a "rape in progress." The words "in progress" appear to carry some hefty weight, because about four minutes later I saw the police cruise by, but miss, the alley. My phone rang, I spoke with an officer, and went downstairs to try and direct them to the place. Two officers went into the alley, but found nothing. I described the man and woman as best I could, and was prepared to leave it at that.

(2) Fifteen minutes later, unbelievably, the man and woman returned to the alley. Still stumbling, arguing, they sat down and began drinking and. Still unsure of what to do, I called 911 again. At this point I was unsure if the officers had spoken with these people, decided everything was fine and that was the end of it, or if they were still looking. I decided to be sure, and I called.

The police cruised by the alley again, but did not go in. The man and woman were in the shadows, almost directly beneath my window. They could not be seen by the police without entering the alley.

(3) Realizing what had happened - but not wanting to tie up the police emergency number - I called the police precinct for the area. At this point I was unaware 311 is the city number for non-emergency. I spoke with an officer, who said the information was relayed on to others.

Nothing happened.

(4) Eventually finding out 311 was non-emergency, I called it and passed on the information again. Including a description of where in the alley the two people were. Again the police cruised by, but did not enter the alley. I decided at this point I was done - they man and woman were still together, sitting in the shadows, and I was prepared to let the incident go. I was frustrated.

(5) Then the woman began yelling again, calling for the police. They were fighting, the man appeared to push the woman. I dialed 911 again, explained that all total this was my fifth call, and if the police could come I would really appreciate it.

The police finally did arrive. Four officers came down the alley, spoke at length to the two, and when it was all said and done, sent them on their way.

End of story.

Obviously, I have two concerns. The first is that the man and woman were simply set on their way - - obviously when the police arrived the two were simply having a drunken conversation in a dim alley. This is not, I don't think, illegal. So there was nothing that could be done, perhaps. Disturbing, but understandable. The police deal with complex, iffy-situations all the time. So I am sure they made the best decisions they could.

My real issue, however, is needing three additional calls (beyond the second) to direct officers to the scene. The first call was very simple - - perhaps it was the words "in progress." I left my phone number, officers called me, I spoke with them, and if nothing else they found the alley fairly quickly. But the proceeding four calls, though I may have spoken to the wrong people, seem to indicate poor communications systems in place.

If nothing else, dealing more efficiently with my second call would have kept two other calls from 911, clearing the line for other people. That evening I was put on hold in each of my three 911 calls.

Should I have handled the situation differently?
And if I had one suggestion - and not being in law enforcement, I don't know how practical it would be - I would say that putting officers directly in touch with people calling 911 would make things more efficient.

Just my thoughts. Otherwise it was a nice weekend.

And why did El Tipico re-open?

[tom]

I ran into a similar problem a couple months ago.

I was outside when I witnessed the police cruising around my block, obviously looking for someone. I then saw two minivans come down the street and turn into my alley. The two drivers left the vehicles and came out of the alley and ran to the woods behind Bancroft school.

I called 911 and told the dispatcher what I had seen and said I believed the two people I saw were the ones the cops were looking for. I gave the dispatcher everything--street names, where the vans were, and where the possible supsects ran. Unfortunately, nothing happened.

About 45 minutes later I saw a bunch of cops in the alley and went out to tell them what I had witnessed. One of the officers replied that they had merely gotten a call about an illegally parked van in the alley. I told him about my 911 call and he said "Oh, well I guess that explains why there are two vans."

What bothers me is that the police obviously had no clue what happened even though some officers in the same district were pursuing these vehicles just an hour earlier. I just don't undertand why there isn't a better in-district system for officers to cull information from.

[Captain Ralph W. McLean]

Unfortunately, we are limited by the information and communications systems in place. I won't make any excuses, but an explanation as to how our communications systems work might help you understand a little better...

Mr. Walton, it appears that you did exactly the right things when you called the police, but the information gets filtered at every level before it gets to the officers on the street.

The call taker gets your info, and he/she types everything he/she can into the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. The call then goes into a queue according to priority, with calls posing a threat to human life going right to the top of the list and other types of things, like parking complaints, being added at the bottom. (This would tend to explain the experiences that both you and Tom had.)

As the calls roll to the top of the list, a unit is dispatched, assuming that one is available. For calls of a very serious nature, such as an attempted rape, assault or robbery in progress, shooting, etc., cars will be called back into service from other assignments. For lower priority calls, such as parking complaints, reports for incidents (thefts, thefts from autos, etc.) that have concluded and pose no danger, the calls wait for the next available car.

In the case of what appears to be a, "Rape in Progress," this call is one of those that goes straint to the top of the list. If no car is available, a car will be called into service, and/or a supervisor will be dispatched. The officers, however, are dependent on what information the dispatcher gives them over the radio. They are also limited, at times, by the fact that they may be in the act of driving (sometimes very fast) and may not be able to write all of the information down. This type of interference in the communications process, or the absence of clearly written information on the CAD slip, is probably what prompted the dispatcher to call you back to get the exact location of the first incident.

As to your second call, we are again limited to what the call taker wrote down, how the dispatcher read it and what he/she chose to emphasize to the responding officers. The officers that responded may not have been the same ones that came originally. You probably even got a different call taker, and the dispatcher may even have changed. Dispatchers are rotated on a regular basis, sometimes as frequently as every 30 minutes on busy nights, because of the stress they experience in trying to track as many as 40 or 50 units all over an area as large as the Fourth District.

I am glad that you discovered that 311 is the correct non-emergency number for the Communications Division. It is very helpful for you to call there, rather than the 4D Station. In those instances where a station officer gets a call, he/she has to take the info and then call the Communications Division, thus adding another "filter" to the process. Additionally, the station officers do not dispatch info to the units in the field, this is a centralized function within the Communication Division. It is much simpler, and much less time consuming, for citizens to give the info directly to a call taker at Communications, albeit not a perfect system.

I am glad we finally got it right, even though it was on the fifth call. You are right when you say that there is not much an officer can do with situations of this type. If the woman failed to indicate that a criminal offense had taken place, and since she came back with the guy a second time I'm confident that this was the case, there is no probable cause for an arrest. Even in the case of the disturbance that was created, our disorderly conduct laws require that an officer witness the behavior occasioning the distrurbance, yelling, cursing, etc., and such arrests cannot be made simply based upon a citizen's report. Thus, sending the parties on their way may be the only solution.

As far as improving the system, I'm at a loss to say how it might be done. We are currently putting mobile digital computers in all of the cars, but runs are not dispatched in this way yet. Additionally, Chief Ramsey has spoken of putting cell phones in all of the patrol cars, in which case the responding officer might be able to speak directly with the complainants as you suggested. In a department as large as the MPD, however, this has the potential to be an extremely expensive proposition, so I don't see it happening in the immediate future, but we can all hope...

As far as El Tipico is concerned, it was closed by the ABC Board after a lengthly investigation by the Narcotics Strike Force surrounding the sale of narcotics and several arrests. The ABC is responsible for any decisions related to its status. It is my understanding, however, that one of the conditions in allowing them to reopen, was that they NOT sell alcohol. If they are violating this restriction, please call it to the attention of the ABC Board immediately. (I would also appreciate a note on this part of the Forum)

Tom, I hope that in explaining the system to Mr. Walton, it helps you understand how your situation could have occurred. The officers you encountered may not have been the same ones you saw looking originally, and we may even have changed shifts.

As I said, I didn't come here to make excuses, and I won't. What I can try to do though, is make sure that you know how the system works so that you can make the most efficient use of it. It's not perfect, but it's alot better than the ones that came before, and it will continue to improve.

Let me close by saying that you should always get relaible, efficient service from your police department. If you don't, it is your responsibility to call it to the attention of a supervisor, otherwise we may never know about it or be able to correct the situation/behavior. I thank you both for taking the time to post messages. I hope my response helped. Please feel free to contact me again if this gives rise to further questions.