The family of three murder victims is suing the District of Columbia police department and its Office of Unified Communications (OUC), claiming they mishandled a 911 call from their apartment, and that officers waited over one-hour delay before breaking in to find the victims dead. The lawsuit raises two comm center issues: the calltaker heard a child’s voice on the 911 call, and may have believed it was a prank call. And officers who arrived at the apartment did not have information about prior violent incidents there, affecting their decision to quickly enter.
Erika Peters and her two young children were viciously attacked by her boyfriend, who stabbed them to death in the Washington (DC) apartment they shared in March 2009. A 911 call from inside the apartment was fielded by a calltaker at the Office of Unified Communications (OUC), who heard a child’s voice screaming into the phone. A man’s voice was then was heard—”I told y’all to quit f***ing with me.” The 911 call went silent, despite the calltaker’s repeatedly asking, “Hello?” The calltaker created an incident that included the notation that a child was “possibly playing” on the phone, and officers were dispatched. When they arrived, they could hear a voice saying, “No, stop” just inside the door. The officers knocked, but received no response. They then radioed for a captain to arrive, waited 45 minutes, then radioed for the fire department to break in the security door, and waited another eight minutes. At least one hour passed before officers entered the apartment to find Peters and one child dead, and the other child near death.
In the U.S. District Court lawsuit filed by the family says the 911 call was mishandled and incorrectly classified, and that officers failed to promptly enter the apartment and save the occupants. It states that police officers had responded to the apartment several times previously, and should have known that children there were “obviously in grave distress.” Although no dispatcher—named or unnamed—was included as a defendant in the lawsuit, the lawsuit text does cite how the 911 call was handled and dispatched several times. Besides mis-classifying the 911 call, the lawsuit says the OUC failed to “insure that responding officers had sufficient information upon arrival at scene.”
The lawsuit seeks $20 million dollars each for Peters and her two children for various expenses, but also for “pre-death fright, extreme pain and suffering, fear and anticipation of impending injury and death, as well as severe emotional distress and psychic trauma prior to their deaths.”
Download (pdf) a copy of the entire lawsuit here.
5 comments… add one
Tragic situation. Very sad all around.
I’m not sure how I understand this is the TC’s fault. If the call was dipatched and turned over to LEO than how is the dispatch center held responsible for the outcome? It is becoming a common issue to blame dispatch for the outcome of “bad” calls. However people tend to forget we are at times just the messenger. We are only as good as the inforamtion given to us and cannot make an officer go and take a call. If the officer’s responded and clearly heard something that did not sound correct they should be the ones held responsible for the outcome.
I dont want to see any officer loose thier job (As I am very protective over all of my units) however it does not sound like this should fall on dispatch.
If protocol was followed and the TC at least attempted contact back with the caller and than dispatched the call to a unit than they have done all they can do and should not be held liable.
Shortly after the incident, the family stated its intention to file a lawsuit that included naming the handling calltaker. However, the actual lawsuit mentions various DC officials and police officers (as John Doe’s), but does not mention the dispatcher. Even so, several sections of the lawsuit mention mishandling of the 911 call, primarily including the “possibly playing” remark in the CAD comments. The family believes that phrase misled the officers, who may have used that bit of information to make their decision not to immediately enter the apartment. One has to question exactly what value the phrase “possibly playing” has as a CAD comment. It is too vague and too uncertain to make a real judgement on what action to take. More valuable would be including an exact description of what the calltaker heard, such as, “Sound of person yelling” or “Whisper of word ‘help.'” Typing in assumptions or conclusions can only result in a wrong decision.
As a trained TC with several years experience I respect the idea that there is always something to be learned from these incidents. Its unfortuante that it takes stories such as this to create further education training and understanding of Telecommuncations. However, TC’s are trained to go with thier gut instinct, just as officers are. I often notate in CAD “child playing on the phone”. However if I hear anything that doesnt sound proper I also notate that. If ever I hear what I may even think of as distress I notate exactly what it was, often times playing the recording back (sometimes even for co-workers) to ensure I have heard it correctly. I am certain that any TC’s involved will suffer greater than anything a center/lawsuit could do to them. I still believe it was on the hands of the responding officers to make entry. They are still the ones on scene, not us. Our calls may only last seconds however they were there, and they also heard distress coming from the house.
I dont disagree that TC’s get VERY busy at times and perhaps this TC should have looked at call history for the house (as I always check for a 911 hang up call). But I still feel as if the punishment they will receive from the lawsuit will not match what they feel at this moment.
Rebekah, I believe they are blaming the dispatchers for not picking up on the guy stating “I told y’all to quit f***ing with me.” which they say can be heard in the initial call, and the lack of information provided regarding previous incidents at that address. I know we provide officer’s information regarding pervious calls to addresses. It seems that some crucial information was left out regarding this call that may have alerted the officer’s to a more dire situation. I don’t beleive they should not hold the officer’s accountable but there were errors made by dispatch.
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.