In States with Cell Phone Laws, Question?

[auntie]

I have son on the job... NYPD.
It is very common here for our officers to be in touch with one another and their superiors back at the house via their cell phones. They don't use the radio or dispatch for that. They use their own personal phones, and they also are offered a discount through their cell phone carrier because the phone is used for work purposes.

I gotta say, this thread is starting to sound a lot like the lady who called the precinct to say the officers she saw guarding a building that is potential terrorist threat weren't doing their job. How did she know that you say? "well, because,..they were smiling." By God she was sure of it!
Yep..she saw their faces, and she felt if they were taking their jobs seriously, they wouldn't be smiling.
Apparently, while you wait to be possiblly blown to bits and put yourself in harms way to protect others..you shall not smile.

Sheesh...


_____________________

 

[donaldduck352]

I'm only calling it as I seen.It's all true.

 

[sunnydoozer]

There are things that are to sensitive to be put ot on the air. Remember the news media listens to radios to. So do you want the media at someones house to let them know about their loved ones accident, fatal or other misfortune before they can be notified?
Or responding to a silent alarm when the bad guys have scanners? Or a home invasion? These things happen - alot more than the general public knows.

There are abuses in every walk of life but cell phones can be a vital tool of notification when needed.

So if I smile because of something a coworker says while I am being told of something that makes the whole conversation casual. As far as too long, have you ever coordinated a STOP team or divers or SERT - when you have multiple agencies involved there are no short calls.

However texting is a HUGE no-no!!!

So you list off a bunch of things and why they are done safely a certain way, but you can't clue in about cell phone safety Common well studied, with cheap and readily available alternatives...

Here's the why on the seatbelt issue. The buckle on the seatbelt sits against the gun which is very often on the right hip. It's uncomfortable to say the least. More importantly, though, is the need to be able to exit the car quickly and not deal with a seatbelt. Yes, those extra couple of seconds can make a huge difference.

In response to the OP, here they are not supposed to be on the phone while driving unless they are on official business. When I call DH and work and he is driving, he will tell me to hold on while he pulls over. He does use his signal and does obey traffic laws.

Oh well! If its in the way of their gun belt, then to heck with safety. And they do wear their belts sometimes. The cop that ran a red light on a blind intersection, straight in to my cousin's ambulance, knocking it on its side and killing their patient, that cop was wearing a seat-belt.

Maybe the cops should just get to pick and choose. To heck with common sense. Why make sure the way is clear before going? Why use a seatbelt? Why follow basic cell phone safety?

 

[hambirg]

I didn't read all the posts, but here in WA there is a no driving while on your cell phone law, and YES police officers are exempt.

 

[bumbershoot]

Okay I am done with this because I see the handwriting on the wall, it is a non-arguement. It was really not a question to which an answer was expected but a chance to diatribe the evil of cops & cell phones.

I highly doubt that Dawn is on a diatribe. In fact, she seems to be concerned about their safety. Isn't that nice of her?

If these laws are enacted for *safety*, that means that people are safer when not holding phones and talking into them. Therefore, police officers, who are already multi-tasking anyway, shouldn't be doing it either.

It's the weirdest thing...happens with police officers and military personnel...people who are concerned about their safety are so often seen as being against them. It's so weird. If I want a police officer to be safer than they are right now, how does that make me against the police officer? To my view, it makes me feel like I care MORE about that police officer than others do. But that's impossible. Right?

It's an officer safety issue. A flashing light on a blue tooth on an officers ear at night makes him stand out when he or she is out of his vehicle.

Electrical tape.

Should mention that if the officer is out of the vehicle, they could hold a cellphone in their hand...no need for the earpiece.

In most instances they are driving faster with one hand then I ever have with both, IMO it's more dangerous for officers to not use blue tooth units then it is for anyone else not to use them.

Absolutely!

Well obviously an officer would need to use discretion in giving information out. If he's got ANYONE in his (and I'm just using a general his, not dissing the female officers out there) vehicle, especially handcuffed in the backseat, there is NO reason to give any personal information via phone! And that would make absolutely NO difference whether the officer was using a blue tooth or simply holding his phone by his ear, if someone is in the backseat they can still hear the officer speaking on his phone.

If the patrol car is in motion people outside the vehicle can't hear the officer's conversation, unless his windows are down and he's screaming so I don't feel your "argument" (I know you aren't really arguing, just pointing out your opinions, that's why I put argument in quotes) is very valid.

Good points! If the officer is giving out important info, it would be by walkie talkie or cellphone. Using an earpiece would do the exact same thing, he would be heard just the same as if he were holding a phone to his face or a walkietalkie to his mouth, AND it would keep the officer safer!

If there were someone else in the car, it makes no difference at all what method they would use...the other person is going to hear it anyway.

OF course, if it's dispatch giving the info, especially something like a SSN, then isn't the officer writing it down? So she's got a pen and paper, a cellphone, oh, and she's driving...wait...2 arms, three things... Again, ear cricket (sorry, I hate those things, I just don't use the phone in the car b/c I can't stand those things, they look like a bug has landed on your face!) would keep them safer.

IT'S A SERIOUS SITUATION THAT COULD PUT AN OFFICERS LIFE IN JEOPARDY. IN THE PITCH DARK, SEARCHING FOR A POTENTIALLYARMED SUSPECT WHO IS HIDING, THE OFFICER'S POSITION WOULD BE INDICATED BY THAT LIGHT EVERY FEW SECONDS. THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE IS A TOOL THE OFFICER NEEDS

In your scenario, they are on foot, yes? So they can be holding a phone to their ear. Except, wait...if they are on a phone and they are talking or someone is talking to them, then let's forget about that whole safety thing b/c they would be making noises.

And a phone ringing as they snuck up would be bad as well. So pretty much, they might not be on a cellphone while sneaking up in the pitch dark (except for on TV, where I see it often b/c they seem to think bad guys are deaf to voices). Also there would be that pesky issue of the lit-up display on the phone shining a bright beacon to their location (unless they found some electrical tape).

So how can that possibly be an issue, let alone an argument for not using bluetooth on a cellphone? It's not part of it at all.



The arguments for police officers to continue holding a cellphone to the face, vs using an earpiece, aren't making a bit of sense.

 

[livie1205]

I highly doubt that Dawn is on a diatribe. In fact, she seems to be concerned about their safety. Isn't that nice of her?

If these laws are enacted for *safety*, that means that people are safer when not holding phones and talking into them. Therefore, police officers, who are already multi-tasking anyway, shouldn't be doing it either.

It's the weirdest thing...happens with police officers and military personnel...people who are concerned about their safety are so often seen as being against them. It's so weird. If I want a police officer to be safer than they are right now, how does that make me against the police officer? To my view, it makes me feel like I care MORE about that police officer than others do. But that's impossible. Right?




Electrical tape.

Should mention that if the officer is out of the vehicle, they could hold a cellphone in their hand...no need for the earpiece.





Absolutely!




Good points! If the officer is giving out important info, it would be by walkie talkie or cellphone. Using an earpiece would do the exact same thing, he would be heard just the same as if he were holding a phone to his face or a walkietalkie to his mouth, AND it would keep the officer safer!

If there were someone else in the car, it makes no difference at all what method they would use...the other person is going to hear it anyway.

OF course, if it's dispatch giving the info, especially something like a SSN, then isn't the officer writing it down? So she's got a pen and paper, a cellphone, oh, and she's driving...wait...2 arms, three things... Again, ear cricket (sorry, I hate those things, I just don't use the phone in the car b/c I can't stand those things, they look like a bug has landed on your face!) would keep them safer.





In your scenario, they are on foot, yes? So they can be holding a phone to their ear. Except, wait...if they are on a phone and they are talking or someone is talking to them, then let's forget about that whole safety thing b/c they would be making noises.

And a phone ringing as they snuck up would be bad as well. So pretty much, they might not be on a cellphone while sneaking up in the pitch dark (except for on TV, where I see it often b/c they seem to think bad guys are deaf to voices). Also there would be that pesky issue of the lit-up display on the phone shining a bright beacon to their location (unless they found some electrical tape).

So how can that possibly be an issue, let alone an argument for not using bluetooth on a cellphone? It's not part of it at all.



The arguments for police officers to continue holding a cellphone to the face, vs using an earpiece, aren't making a bit of sense.

yep you sound like you can do that job better then most cops...when ya start? by the way all that "multi tasking" they do...they are TRAINED to drive while distracted! you know TRAINED like a dr is trained to do his job...these r not any joes they give a gun belt and a car to! they are even trained to shoot while distracted...so yeh not so much a big deal...

 

[auntie]

There are MANY times when an officer would need to be on a cell phone.
Dispatch may not always be clear. As often they are not quite as familiar with a location in the same manner in which an officer who patrols that particular area regularly may be. They are merely relaying information as they know it, and how it was passed on to them. It doesn't mean a location is always accurate.
Additionaly, in a large metropolitain area, there are dispatchers employeed with various dialects. Meaning their English is not always their primary language. There is sometimes pertinent information lost in that translation. It is not unsual for one officer to call another officer en route to a particular location and give a heads up as to what they may encounter upon arrival..and often even first hand knowledge of the building and it's access.
This means that sometimes the officer you see in a car is calling another officer en route to a location. What appears to the public as simply a cop on his phone, may be in fact a cop giving information that may SAVE YOUR LIFE to another officer. It might enable another officer to get to a location quicker. Perhaps, it will be information provided that ensures the safety of the officer enroute as his fellow officer is giving a heads up to an alternate entry location that dispatch isn't aware of. (criminals.. carry with them same scanner the media does, so they know when an officer is en route to their location!)
As for the technology that some feel could be an alternative to an officer using their phone. Hey, if you don't mind the increase in your tax dollars to equip officers and cars with the needed equipment. Great. Only most departments are making cut backs and lay offs. They're lucky if there's money in the budget for an extra roll of toilet paper and gas in the patrol car to get them through a shift. Perhaps some of the suggestions are do-able in small municipalities, but in a HUGE metropolitan area that's not the case. Heck, truth be told.. they don't even have enough radios for officers to take out with them! THEY ARE ON THEIR OWN out there. Sometimes the only link to them and the house..is their phone.
So you see a cop on the phone, and it pisses you off. Okay, but think about this if you will. That's the same officer who is gonna be first on the scene when a crane collapses and the beheaded contruction workers need to be identified. You gonna do that?.. Thats the same officer who pushed your disabled mother four city blocks and then carried her upstairs to her apt. when her motorized wheel chair died because he wanted to spare her the embarassment of calling her family. That's the same officer who will spend Thanksgiving with a homeless man he brought to the hospital and not around his families table. These are the types things every one of them do, day in and day out. And.. you're pissed off he was on his phone...really? You know what..maybe he even called his mother to wish her a Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[livie1205]

There are MANY times when an officer would need to be on a cell phone.
Dispatch may not always be clear. As often they are not quite as familiar with a location in the same manner in which an officer who patrols that particular area regularly may be. They are merely relaying information as they know it, and how it was passed on to them. It doesn't mean a location is always accurate.
Additionaly, in a large metropolitain area, there are dispatchers employeed with various dialects. Meaning their English is not always their primary language. There is sometimes pertinent information lost in that translation. It is not unsual for one officer to call another officer en route to a particular location and give a heads up as to what they may encounter upon arrival..and often even first hand knowledge of the building and it's access.
This means that sometimes the officer you see in a car is calling another officer en route to a location. What appears to the public as simply a cop on his phone, may be in fact a cop giving information that may SAVE YOUR LIFE to another officer. It might enable another officer to get to a location quicker. Perhaps, it will be information provided that ensures the safety of the officer enroute as his fellow officer is giving a heads up to an alternate entry location that dispatch isn't aware of. (criminals.. carry with them same scanner the media does, so they know when an officer is en route to their location!)
As for the technology that some feel could be an alternative to an officer using their phone. Hey, if you don't mind the increase in your tax dollars to equip officers and cars with the needed equipment. Great. Only most departments are making cut backs and lay offs. They're lucky if there's money in the budget for an extra roll of toilet paper and gas in the patrol car to get them through a shift. Perhaps some of the suggestions are do-able in small municipalities, but in a HUGE metropolitan area that's not the case. Heck, truth be told.. they don't even have enough radios for officers to take out with them! THEY ARE ON THEIR OWN out there. Sometimes the only link to them and the house..is their phone.
So you see a cop on the phone, and it pisses you off. Okay, but think about this if you will. That's the same officer who is gonna be first on the scene when a crane collapses and the beheaded contruction workers need to be identified. You gonna do that?.. Thats the same officer who pushed your disabled mother four city blocks and then carried her upstairs to her apt. when her motorized wheel chair died because he wanted to spare her the embarassment of calling her family. That's the same officer who will spend Thanksgiving with a homeless man he brought to the hospital and not around his families table. These are the types things every one of them do, day in and day out. And.. you're pissed off he was on his phone...really? You know what..maybe he even called his mother to wish her a Happy Thanksgiving.

THANK YOU you have no idea how much what you said means to our family, you are right.My dh sometimes calls me to say he will be late and NOT to worry but as he was going home saw a lady on the side of the road with a flat and its storming so he will be stopping to help.If he does not get in touch and 2 hours after his shift ends and he is stuck on a bad call guess what? I am worried out of my mind....I wish that people that think they know best what take out time in THEIR lives to ride a 12 hour shift and then tell me what THEY would do better.

 

[Heidict]

Here's the why on the seatbelt issue. The buckle on the seatbelt sits against the gun which is very often on the right hip. It's uncomfortable to say the least. More importantly, though, is the need to be able to exit the car quickly and not deal with a seatbelt. Yes, those extra couple of seconds can make a huge difference.

In response to the OP, here they are not supposed to be on the phone while driving unless they are on official business. When I call DH and work and he is driving, he will tell me to hold on while he pulls over. He does use his signal and does obey traffic laws.

Nothing but excuses. My father was a cop and yet he had no problem wearing his seatbelt, even with a gun on his right hip.

 

[Heidict]

yep you sound like you can do that job better then most cops...when ya start? by the way all that "multi tasking" they do...they are TRAINED to drive while distracted! you know TRAINED like a dr is trained to do his job...these r not any joes they give a gun belt and a car to! they are even trained to shoot while distracted...so yeh not so much a big deal...

Kinda like the guy that someone referenced earlier? The one who was trained to do all the multitasking but still managed to kill a couple of girls? Or the one here in CT that was trained but also killed a couple of young people? I'm sure those are not the only 2 cases out there.

Most cops are great. They take their jobs seriously and they take the laws seriously. That means pulling over before chatting with their wives and otherwise obeying the law. Unfortunately there are always going to be the bad apples in the bunch. The ones who's ego's inflate the minute they put on the uniform, the ones who think that the laws don't apply to them. Those are the ones that people have a problem with, not the hardworking, honest cops out there.

 

[livie1205]

Nothing but excuses. My father was a cop and yet he had no problem wearing his seatbelt, even with a gun on his right hip.

My dh also wears his but it comes off before he gets to the call if its a in progress call so he can get out without getting tangled...which does happen with tons of stuff they have on their belt.

 

[livie1205]

Kinda like the guy that someone referenced earlier? The one who was trained to do all the multitasking but still managed to kill a couple of girls? Or the one here in CT that was trained but also killed a couple of young people? I'm sure those are not the only 2 cases out there.

Most cops are great. They take their jobs seriously and they take the laws seriously. That means pulling over before chatting with their wives and otherwise obeying the law. Unfortunately there are always going to be the bad apples in the bunch. The ones who's ego's inflate the minute they put on the uniform, the ones who think that the laws don't apply to them. Those are the ones that people have a problem with, not the hardworking, honest cops out there.

NO ONE said they were all good and great...but the OP is known for cop bashing threads.....one after the other after the other after the other...I dont know anything about the cop that killed any girls...some people should do the job some should not..just like in any job, bad workers do get through.....and really did you even read the first post from OP? she just "knows" it was not a work call huh? maybe I should ask her for the lotto numbers? I can see the point about a cop that killed people,its a fact..but her post is NOT a fact and frankly its getting old.

 

[auntie]

Kinda like the guy that someone referenced earlier? The one who was trained to do all the multitasking but still managed to kill a couple of girls? Or the one here in CT that was trained but also killed a couple of young people? I'm sure those are not the only 2 cases out there.

Most cops are great. They take their jobs seriously and they take the laws seriously. That means pulling over before chatting with their wives and otherwise obeying the law. Unfortunately there are always going to be the bad apples in the bunch. The ones who's ego's inflate the minute they put on the uniform, the ones who think that the laws don't apply to them. Those are the ones that people have a problem with, not the hardworking, honest cops out there.

Exactly.. only how would the OP know which it was she saw talking on the phone. ESP. I think some here are merely trying to point out circumstances when in fact, an officer would be using their cell phone while on duty. Those are not excuses. The OP has no way of knowing what the call is regarding. The fact is there is an exemption in her state for law enforcement and emergency personel using cell phones. SO THEY ARE NOT BREAKING THE LAW. If she doesn't like it, then she should look into having that law changed. As it stands, he did nothing illegal.

 

[Heidict]

My dh also wears his but it comes off before he gets to the call if its a in progress call so he can get out without getting tangled...which does happen with tons of stuff they have on their belt.

That makes perfect sense and I would think the way it should be done. This keeps him safe during all the other times he is driving around and yet allows him the assurance that he can quickly and safely get out of the car when getting to a call.

NO ONE said they were all good and great...but the OP is known for cop bashing threads.....one after the other after the other after the other...I dont know anything about the cop that killed any girls...some people should do the job some should not..just like in any job, bad workers do get through.....and really did you even read the first post from OP? she just "knows" it was not a work call huh? maybe I should ask her for the lotto numbers? I can see the point about a cop that killed people,its a fact..but her post is NOT a fact and frankly its getting old.

I don't know anything about her other threads that have to do with cops except the one where her son got a ticket and he wanted to fight it. Do you have any links to other cop bashing threads? I don't recall her starting any.

Of course I read the OP. Really. Unlike some posters, I make it a point to read the op and the responses so I know what I'm talking about when I respond. No, she doesn't know for sure, she was picking up on his body language and that is probably what led her to believe it was a personal call. Without hearing the conversation though, I wouldn't venture a guess. Also in light of the fact that we have plenty of cops around who think the laws don't apply to them she probably figured this was just one more.

 

[DawnCt1]

NO ONE said they were all good and great...but the OP is known for cop bashing threads.....one after the other after the other after the other...I dont know anything about the cop that killed any girls...some people should do the job some should not..just like in any job, bad workers do get through.....and really did you even read the first post from OP? she just "knows" it was not a work call huh? maybe I should ask her for the lotto numbers? I can see the point about a cop that killed people,its a fact..but her post is NOT a fact and frankly its getting old.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Often the police are right. Sometimes they are not. I have seen enough calls to be able to guess if its personal or business. I will bet that I am right half of the time. But of course, you know for a fact that any officer talking on a cell phone is simply conducting business and nothing more. Please show me how that is a "fact".

 

[auntie]

Whether you believe the conversation is work related or not..it is inmaterial, as in your state it is legal. If it bothers you that much you can always seek to change it.

 

[mdsoccermom]

That is absolutely ridiculous. Often the police are right. Sometimes they are not. I have seen enough calls to be able to guess if its personal or business. I will bet that I am right half of the time. But of course, you know for a fact that any officer talking on a cell phone is simply conducting business and nothing more. Please show me how that is a "fact".

So, a person that says an officer talking on a cell phone could very well be conducting business is wrong, but you who have seen calls and make arbitrary guesses out of your rear as to whether they are personal or business is right?

What a load.

 

[auntie]

I hear sirens now...

This thread is headed to lock up.

 

[phorsenuf]

<snip>
In Fla it is against the law to talk or text on a cell.
<snip>

You can talk on a cell phone in Florida while driving. There is no law against it.

 

[DawnCt1]

You can talk on a cell phone in Florida while driving. There is no law against it.

You can also talk on the cell phone in Massachusetts, right across the state line. I haven't noticed that they are dying in Massachusetts at a faster rate than we are.