The Services Dispatch Officers - Research Paper Example

? Civil Liability Effectiveness and efficiency of federal, county, or municipal installations are heavily dependent on the services of dispatch officers. Dispatch officers play critical communications role as they are responsible for transmitting and receiving reliable and correct messages, recording important information, and tracking equipments and vehicles. Public safety dispatchers often receive calls from institutions and individuals who are in need of help from emergency medical officers, police officers, and firefighters. Despite the integral role played by public safety telecommunications, civil liability may arise from the processes involved. Civil Liability Introduction It is no doubt that technological advancements across the world have greatly improved people’s way of lives. Nonetheless, these advancements have made human beings to be more vulnerable to technological threats that have compromised their safety. In particular, advancements in the area of telecommunications have called for enhanced measures in public safety telecommunications. In recent times, the United States has been facing increasing threats to the cyber security and resiliency of its telecommunications networks. It is against this background that the government and other stakeholders in the telecommunications industry have enhanced their efforts in ensuring public safety telecommunications (APCO Institute, 1997). They seek to enhance public safety by preventing telecommunications-related emergencies and responding swiftly when such emergencies occur. While the benefits of telecommunications are numerous, there are also liability risks for telecommunications operators and their employees. Telecommunications operators are required to publish information to follow established guidelines relating to public safety telecommunications. One danger that public safety telecommunications face is that development of telecommunications is massive, but the liability knowledge on the same is limited (APCO Institute, 1997). This paper will focus on the legal issues related to liability in public safety telecommunications. Specifically, it will review a civil liability to dispatch; this review will be in particular reference to the court case of Michael Swan v. City of Hueytown. Facts of the case of Michael Swan v. City of Hueytown On 3rd May, 2000, Michael Swan was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by Hueytown Police Department officer, Ben Williams. The officer asked to see the driving licenses of the passenger, Swan, and that of the driver. Since Alabama Code, 1975 Section 15-5-30 provides for a sheriff, police, or other officer to stop a car if he suspects is committing, about to commit, or committed a public offense and demand information about the driver or explanations, it is in order that the vehicle in which Swan was boarding to be stopped. Officer Williams then radioed the Hueytown Police Department dispatcher who searched the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database using the information provided to him by Officer Williams to determine whether Swan had outstanding warrants. Officer Williams cannot figure out clearly the kind of information that he provided to the dispatcher, but he testified that he would normally have provided the detainee’s date of birth and name, or his Social Security number, or driver’s license number. Officer Williams was notified by the dispatcher that the City of Birmingham had an outstanding warrant of Swan. Officer Williams sought to confirm and found that indeed Michael Swan had an outstanding warrant (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). However, later evidence showed that the outstanding warrants were not for “Michael Swan” but for Michael Swann” (the surname spelt with two ‘n’s not one). Apparently, Officer Williams and the dispatcher failed to react or recognize the difference in spelling the last name. As a result of this discrepancy, Officer Williams arrested Swan and subsequently took him to the Hueytown jail. Swan was thereafter taken to the Birmingham jail. After sometime, the City of Birmingham established that Michael Swan did not have any outstanding arrest warrant. He was taken to the Hueytown jail in order to be released. He was released about four hours after he had been stopped (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). Feeling that he had been subjected to unwarranted arrest, Swan decided to sue the City of Hueytown and the City of Birmingham two years later, on 3rd May, 2002. In its response, the City of Hueytown asserted that pursuant to section 6-5-338 of Alabama Code 1975, it was immune from liability; that is, peace officers had immunity from tort liability for conduct while on duty. Moreover, the City of Hueytown cited section 11-47-190 of the Alabama Code 1975 which provides municipalities with immunity from tort liability except from circumstances in which alleged injury involved “carelessness and neglect of some agent”. The City of Hueytown moved for a summary judgment on March 5, 2003. The trial court entered summary judgment for the City of Hueytown by relying solely on section 6-5-338, Alabama Code 1975 on October 27, 2003. As a result, Swan appealed (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). Standard of Review The Supreme Court applied the same standard in reviewing a ruling by the trial court on a summary judgment motion. The Supreme Court noted that granting of such motion required that trial court should establish that the evidence provided does not create valid issues of the material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As noted in the case of West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, substantial evidence is evidence with quality and weight that fair-minded persons exercising impartial judgment can infer reasonably the existence of fact which is sought to be proved (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). Analysis According to Swan, he suffered injuries due to failure by Officer Williams to “inspect and subsequently determine his true identity”. On the other hand, the City of Hueytown argued that the dispatcher and Officer Williams are entitled to immunity as State agents according to section 6-5-338, Alabama Code 1975. Also, Hueytown argued that it is entitled to substantive immunity as was decided in the case of Rich v. City of Mobile (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). Actions of the Officer It should be noted that section 6-5-338, Alabama Code 1975 provides immunity for every peace officer from tort liability whose duties are: the investigation and reporting of violations of, the enforcement of, the criminal laws of Alabama state and who the law has empowered to take into custody, to arrest, to execute warrants, or who are legally charged by indictment, warrant, or other lawful processes, with violations of, the criminal laws of the Alabama state. The Alabama Code 1975 under section 6-5-338 states that a law-enforcement officer is entitled to State-agent immunity wherever he or she is performing a discretionary function. Immunity from tort liability can only arise out of the performance of peace officer of any discretionary duty which is in scope or in line of his or her functions of law-enforcement. So, how do actions of Officer William fit in the legal provisions provided in the Alabama Code 1975? Officer Williams is a State-agent and as such he is covered under the immunity from tort liability. His gathering of information from Michael Swan and subsequent arrest is an indication that he was exercising his judgment as a State- agent. He testified that even though he cannot quite remember what he asked Swan, as an State-agent he normally ask about Swan’s Social Security number, his date of birth and name, or his driver’s license number. Officer Williams also demonstrated his exercise of judgment in the criminal laws enforcement as a State- agent by choosing the kind of information to pass to the dispatcher so that the later can run the NCIC check. Therefore, his arrest of Swan was based on the response of the dispatcher who confirmed that Swan was having outstanding warrant (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). Actions of the Dispatcher In his argument, Swan argues that the dispatcher’s actions for the Hueytown Police Department by running NCIC check led to his arrest, which was unlawful. In order to effectively determine the actions of the dispatcher, the following should be determined: is the dispatcher a peace officer within the definition under section 6-5-338? If so, was the dispatcher involved in attempting to arrest or arresting a person when he checked on the NCIC database, telephoned the City of Birmingham to confirm the existence of the outstanding warrant, and made a communication to Officer Williams that Michael Swan had two outstanding warrants. Swan agrees that police dispatcher is a peace officer as defined under section 6-5-338. Two cases were quoted in qualifying the dispatcher as a peace officer under the aforementioned section: the cases of Howard v. City of Atmore and Houston County Comm’n v. Hart. The actions of the dispatcher were strictly limited to the information that Officer Williams provided; this means that the dispatcher only searched for the information that had been provided by Officer Williams. Mr. Swan argues that the dispatcher of the City of Hueytown and the communications officer did not examine the information that was contained in the NCIC. Based on the case of City of Bayou La Batre v. Robinson, the Supreme Court determined that this case should not be used because they involved different circumstances. The court argued that the dispatcher performed the duties of police officers and solely used the information provided by Officer Williams. They both qualify under section 6-5-338 as State-agents (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). However, Swan did not address the question of whether the dispatcher engaged in attempting to arrest or arresting a person. Officer Williams gave consistent testimony that the information communicated to him by the dispatcher indicating that Swan had two outstanding warrants is what prompted him to arrest Swan. So, the question arises of whether the actions of the dispatcher directly led to the arrest of Swan? Officer Williams further stated that seeking confirmation on the outstanding warrants of the detainee is a routine part of making arrests. If Officer Williams had all the information collected about the detainee, or had the dispatcher been a different officer on the scene giving information, it could not been argued that the dispatcher had directly led to the arrest of Swan. As such, it can be concluded that the dispatcher in performing his functions was “attempting to arrest or arrested” Swan. This case shows the dispatcher as performing the following duties: receiving information from Officer Williams that was relevant to run the NCIC check; he ran the information on the NCIC check; he made a communication to Officer Williams that the person whose information has been ran through NCIC check had two outstanding warrants; he telephoned Officer Williams confirming the existence of outstanding warrant, which required that other information be relayed from the NCIC check. In all these actions, the court concluded that the dispatcher was, as mandated by the law, exercising discretion as a State- agent (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). Substantive Immunity It is clear that the actions of both Officer Williams and the dispatcher were implied to be within the duties of State- agent. However, since their actions led to unlawful arrest of Swan, the question of the extent of State-agents’ immunity provided by the Alabama Code arises; is there substantive immunity from tort liability on the Hueytown and State-agents involved? The City of Hueytown argues that it is entitled to substantive immunity as was provided in the Code and in Rich v. City of Mobile, 410 So.2d 385 (Ala.1982). Also, Hueytown hold that the dispatcher and Officer Williams are entitled to immunity as State agents from tort liability (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). Conclusion The Supreme Court held that the City of Hueytown and Officer Williams are entitled to State-agent immunity from tort or civil liability. This decision was informed by the fact that both the dispatcher and Officer Williams were exercising their discretion and judgment in the enforcement of the State’s criminal laws. Therefore, as law-enforcement officers, they were allowed to arrest or attempt to arrest persons. For that reason, the Supreme Court reaffirmed trial court’s summary judgment and ruled in favor of the City of Hueytown and Officer Williams (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). A Review: The Importance of Training Civil liability cases are some of the leading cases in terms of number in the courts especially involving many States’ departments in the United States. A communication officer or a dispatcher often finds themselves on receiving information that require instant response and thereby subjecting themselves to civil liability cases. Primarily, civil liability is a result of multiple issues that are inherent to public safety telecommunication. Therefore, it is important that extensive training be undertaken among all the officers (State-agents) involved in public safety telecommunication. Extensive training should focus mainly on law enforcement personnel, emergency medical personnel, communication centers, and all agencies that respond to maters of public safety (APCO Institute, 1997). The case of Michael Swan v. City of Hueytown showed that the dispatchers and police officers qualify for state- agent immunity from tort liability. However, sometimes it may prove difficult to difference between negligence and liability as there is a very thin line between them. Besides, since NCIC system may be complex too complex to someone with insufficient training about it, it is vital that all dispatchers and other personnel operating it be trained sufficiently. Need for diligence and accuracy should be emphasized because a single error can lead to difficulties; for example, a single typing error in the case of Swan led to him being arrested. Information relayed by the dispatcher are used to make critical decisions such as arresting an individual and therefore such information should be provided from a knowledgeable and skilful standpoint, and training is the main factor in attaining this (APCO Institute, 1997). After reading our course text Civil Liability in Criminal Justice, I expect that telecommunications liability cases will become more strenuous and complex within our legal system. The main challenge presented in telecommunications learned from this case is that the person answering radio transmissions can find him/herself in the wrong side of the law if a lawsuit favors the opposing individual. Such an individual might be more vulnerable to legal consequences such as jail sentences and fines; the dispatcher may bear the greatest civil liability. Accurate and consistent training on the frequent challenges that public safety telecommunicators may experience can go a long way in reducing the number of civil liability cases such as the one involving Michael Swan v. City of Hueytown. The importance of training can be illustrated in this case; if the dispatcher was aware of the possible inaccuracy that may arise in names, addresses, and relevant numbers the error might not have occurred. Dispatchers and other personnel involved in public safety telecommunications should pay attention to details so as to avoid errors, particularly those arising from running check on the NCIC system (Ross, 2009). An Inside View of Immunity As noted in the case, the City of Hueytown and Officer Williams were protected by immunity under section 6-5-338 of the Alabama Code 1975. The Code has categorically stated the duties of persons considered as State-age and has provided immunity to them from liability that may arise in line of the duties that is within their scope. The fact that Officer Williams and the dispatcher made communications as required by their functions as State- agents meant that the Code would protect them in an event that a liability arises. That notwithstanding, Swan, did not have to go through the humiliating situation. In order to avoid such situations from happening in the future, it is important that measures be taken especially in regard to training of public safety telecommunication personnel. In closing remarks Mr. Swan did try to argue his main point once again; however, the judge explained that under qualified immunity, they are not liable for anything that occurred on May 2, 2000. § 6-5-338 will protect dispatchers from this occurrence, but for how long? Dispatchers must remain well trained and ready to avoid liability cases thorough knowledge, skills, and abilities obtained from appropriate training (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005). References APCO Institute. (1997). Liability Issues for Public Safety Telecommunications: Student Manual. APCO institute Publications. Ross, L. (2009). Civil Liability in Criminal Justice. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. State of, AL. (n.d.). Code of Alabama 1975. Retrieved from http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLoginIE.asp Supreme Court of Alabama. (2005, April 15). Michael Swan v. City of Hueytown. Retrieved fromhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3938252569066790394&q=dispatcher+%22Liability%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,1 Read More