CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD - CASE #156

INVESTIGATOR: Michel Toney

DATE OF INCIDENT: December 20, 2022

DATE OF FILING: December 21, 2022

COMPLAINT SUMMARY:

Complainant alleges BPD did not respond to vandalism to his car and BPD dispatcher

Aided Dispatch, Section 4: Telephone Report Taking Procedure: A. 9-1-1 Emergency Call

Takers: Upon receiving a call for a non-life threatening incident which requires a police

incident report not involving a crime in-progress or an excluded incident (as listed in

paragraph B), the Emergency Call Taker shall:

1. Inform the caller that they may report the incident over the telephone and an Emergency

Call Taker from the NIU will call them back and take their report by phone.

2. Enter the call into the CAD indicating in the remarks section that the caller has

requested to file a phone report with the NIU.

OPAT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:

1. BPD RULE 324: Call Intake Handling Procedures For Enhanced 9-1-1 And

Based on all of the evidence presented and reviewed, the CRB voted unanimously (6-0)

that the complaint be considered Exonerated. While the interaction as alleged did occur, it

does not rise to the level of misconduct. The operator did not violate Rule 324.

Although the 9-1-1 call taker informed the Complainant that they could not make a report

over the phone, they did enter the call into the CAD making note of the caller’s request to

file a report about the incident. While this case was found to be Exonerated by the Board,

the CRB strongly recommends that the Department review and update Rule 324.

Discovery List

provide their name.

The Complainant stated that on December 20, 2022, they were out of the country and did a

routine check on their house cameras. While looking at their cameras they noticed that

their vehicle was vandalized. The Complainant called the Boston Police Department

District C-11 to report the crime and was transferred to 9-1-1. The Complainant spoke with

an operator and asked if officers could come to their house and check out the scene and

was told no. According to the Complainant, the operator told them that they would have to

physically be at the location where the crime took place and no one could substitute or fill

in for them. The Complainant believes proper procedures were not followed. The

Complainant stated that they are a concerned citizen who believes that they have the right

Investigator Toney obtained the 9-1-1 call recording from the Boston Police Department

for the incident that took place on December 20, 2022. After reviewing the 9-1-1 call

recording, the operator did tell the Complainant that Officers cannot go to the

Complainant’s home if they are not physically there or present. The operator told the

Complainant to file a report when they come back into the country and officers would then

be sent to their home. The Complainant asked for the operator’s name, and the operator

told the Complainant that they could not reveal their name or identity over a recorded line.

On May 22, 2023 Investigator Toney conducted an in-person interview with the operator,

at the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency. Present at the interview was

OPAT Deputy Director John Steies, along with a Union Representative. During the

emergency services are needed. The Union Representative also stated that SECTION 4:

TELEPHONE REPORT TAKING PROCEDURE of BPD RULE 324: CALL INTAKE

HANDLING PROCEDURES FOR ENHANCED 9-1-1 AND COMPUTER AIDED

DISPATCH, is currently outdated. According to the Union Representative, there is no

Neighborhood Interaction Unit that exists within the Boston Police Department. The Union

Representative concluded by saying that most of the procedures within BPD Rule 324 are

no longer in use and are outdated.