Parents Sue City, Companies Over Response Mix-Up

The parents of a Dallas (Tex.) man who overdosed on Xanax last year have filed a lawsuit against AT&T and Apple Inc., claiming the two companies are withholding technology that could locate cellular 911 callers with within 30 feet. The lawsuit also states that AT&T did not properly train Dallas dispatchers on how to use their 911 system. However, the lawsuit does not address what the city of Dallas already admits, that two overdose incidents were reported at the same apartment complex, and that first responders mistakenly believed there was only one, thereby missing one victim. When Matthew Sanchez collapsed in Nov. 2012, an unknown companion dialed 911 to report his condition. That person then left the location. Police and EMS units were on-scene at a second overdose within the same complex. When Sanchez’ incident was received, field units believed it referred to the same incident they were handling, and so did not investigate the second location. Sanchez’ body was discovered about 40 minutes later by his parents. In their lawsuit, the parents claim Dallas dispatchers “misused” their computer and phone systems, and didn’t realize the 911 calls were from separate locations involving separate victims. They also state the dispatcher negligently hung up “on a pending 911 prior to the arrival of 911 responders and/or a malfunction of the phone system in question caused the caller and the 911 operator to become disconnected.” The lawsuit asks for funeral and burial expenses, for pain and suffering, mental anguish and “loss of companionship.”

The Dallas police comm center is still under a shadow from a high-profile incident that resulted in a delayed response and a woman’s death. In August 2012 Deanna Cook dialed 911 for help, the response was delayed, and arriving officers knocked on her door but did not enter. Her family found her body four days later, and her ex-husband was later arrested for murder. The calltaker who fielded Cook’s call was suspended without pay for 10 days.

Oddly, the parent’s lawsuit (pdf) claims that, “Dispatchers must be trained under nationally recognized National Emergency Number Association (NENA) standards and the Standard Operating Procedures. The lawsuit points to two NENA standards: Handling of Redundant Call (NENA 56-005) and Calls from Wireless Devices (NENA 56-001). [Editor—The actual titles of the two standards are different as posted on NENA’s Web site.] The lawsuit does not cite specific sections of those standards that might pertain to the handling of the 911 call in this incident. However, section 3.14 might be the material to which the attorneys are referring.

However, neither standard is considered a requirement, regulation or law that is binding on any communications center in the United States. Instead, NENA’s preface for both documents state they are “an information source for the voluntary use of communication centers and is provided as an example only.”

As for location accuracy, the lawsuit points to Docket 94-102 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, but does not indicate what the requirements are. In fact, last January the FCC reminded (pdf) carriers of those requirements: within 50 meters 67 percent of the time, and within 150 meters 80 percent of the time on a per-county or per-PSAP basis. There is considerable technical work being performed by the FCC and wireless carriers to improve indoor 911 location accuracy, but no network upgrades are imminent.

Notably, the lawsuit alleges that both AT&T and Apple are withholding technology from the public that would more accurately determine a cellular caller’s location. The lawsuit doesn’t state what that technology is, or why either company is withholding it.

“Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T also has available to it technology that allows it to locate the iPhone in question to locations significantly more accurate than the FCC requirements at the time and could in fact isolate the location of the iPhone in question to as close as 30 feet of the calling location.” In almost four pages of the 12-page lawsuit, the plaintiffs make the same claim about Apple.