Police Didn’t Find Murder Victim, Address Error

A Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) dispatcher may have misheard an address during a 911 from the boyfriend of a woman who was later found murdered, and the police chief says they are now investigating how the call was handled. Danielle Watson, 25, spoke to her boyfriend at about 10:15 p.m., there was some commotion in the background, and the call ended abruptly. She later failed to return home, and her her boyfriend called police just after midnight to say he believed the restaurant might have been robbed. But police chief Rodney Monroe says the calltaker may have misheard the address of the restaurant, and officers were dispatched to a residential location about four miles away. Monroe and communications director Capt. Mike Campagna say they have listened to the logging tape of the call several times, and it’s not clear if the boyfriend gave the correct address of 7930 Rea Road, or 3930 Rea Road, where officers were dispatched. The boyfriend believes he gave the correct address. Monroe says there is no requirement that dispatchers read back the address to the caller for confirmation. Officers arrived at the wrong location about 20 minutes after the 911 call, but found nothing. The calltaker had also entered “Plum Biscuit” instead of “Flying Biscuit,” the restaurant where Watson worked. Monroe said there is some indication that an officer tried to call the boyfriend back, but it’s not clear what number the officer called. Watson’s body was discovered in the rear parking lot of the restaurant near a dumpster about six hours later as police were handling an unrelated theft report. A co-worker was arrested later that day, and Watson’s stolen car was found near his home. Read more, listen to the 911 call and learn of the boyfriend’s reaction here, and a follow-up story here. Update: More information was revealed about the timing of events, but the police department has yet to release CAD records or radio logging tapes that would clarify the actual police response. Read an analysis of the call after the break.

In my opinion, Keith Smith’s call to 911 was handled poorly for several reasons, which I’ve outlined below — Gary Allen, Editor

• In general, the calltaker was extremely uninquisitive about the situation, especially given the bare facts provided by Smith: phone call, commotion, possibly robbery, hours late arriving home.
• The calltaker failed to confirm both the address and name of the restaurant, leading to an incorrect response. There is no indication that CAD premise records (commonplace name file) were used to enter the address, or whether the calltaker, radio dispatcher or handling officer knew the restaurant from previous incidents.
• The calltaker failed to ask what time Danielle Watson called Smith (10:15 p.m.), what time the restaurant closed (9 p.m.), when she usually left work, or how long it took her to arrive home, which might have assisted in a proper evaluation of the urgency of response.
• The calltaker failed to ask about the nature of the “commotion” that Smith heard in the background, or how the call ended, which might have assisted in a proper evaluation of the urgency of response.
• The calltaker failed to ask if Watson had on a cellular or wired telephone, if Smith had tried to call back Watson, or had tried to call the restaurant. There is no indication that anyone at the police department tried to call the restaurant, but certainly no one tried to call Watson’s cellular phone.
• The calltaker failed to obtain sufficient information to insure a safe and proper police response to a possibly dangerous situation (robbery of a commercial business). These questions might have included the location, size and type of restaurant, number of personnel, or if Watson was responsible for closing the restaurant (including putting money in a safe).
• There was no ownership of the call, either by the calltaker, radio dispatcher or the handling officer that we know of. That is, when the officer did not find the restaurant at the dispatched location, no one took responsibility for realizing that a mistake in location probably occurred, and made contact with Smith to clarify the information. No one communicated the urgency in Smith’s voice to the field, to indicate that his report must be carried through to a resolution.
• The calltaker mis-prioritized the incident as a Priority 3, and may have mis-categorized the incident “welfare check” as well. Certainly the urgency of discovering whether Watson was okay or not was high  (commercial business after hours, phone call with commotion, hours late arriving home), even if still categorized as a welfare check. With a few additional questions, the call might more correctly have been categorized as a “suspicious circumstances—robbery” incident. The incident was dispatched within four minutes, and police say an officer arrived with 13 minutes of being dispatched, a reasonable response time.