I had filed a complaint with the Coronado Police Department, (CPD) in 2005. I had to send a follow-up complaint in direct regards to how the complaint was handled. I had never filed a complaint with any police department ever before of since. I have chosen to submit the information here because I do think the residents should know.
In summary the August 2005 complaint regarded a call being hung up on by the CPD dispatcher when I called to report a woman walking up the Coronado Bay Bridge, (not walking to a car), and potentially a jumper. I had requested the CPD dispatcher take the call, explaining that after repeated calls to 911, I had only received busy signals. She refused, and then I requested she transfer the information to 911 or my call to 911. She said she couldn't, and I courteously explained the importance of the call, life and death, and timeliness, and immediately she simply hung up on me without notice. She offered no other options or remedies before hanging up. The call was recorded, and therefore a clear record of the call exists.
Here you have a woman walking up the Coronado Bay Bridge, (not to a vehicle), seemingly a jumper, someones daughter, someones friend, maybe a sister to someone, and the dispatcher is refusing to handle the call, knowing that the caller couldn't get through to 911 after repeated attempts and busy signals. After being hung up on by the dispatcher, I called back to request to speak to someone else or a supervisor. The dispatcher stated that a supervisor wasn't there and that nobody else was there. Again, I courteously reiterated the importance of the call, that being life and death, and timeliness. (Again, the call was recorded). Her reply was that she said that she can put me on hold, but if she was putting me on hold, it would appear she was putting me on hold for nobody, if she had been telling me the truth about nobody being there. After waiting a little while on hold, I hung up and telephoned San Diego police dispatch and explained the situation.
On another related issue, (as was mentioned in the initial complaint), I spoke with the officer in charge the evening of the call, Sergeant Schicker, a few days after the incident. He repeatedly stated that it didn't matter what the dispatcher had done because the woman on the bridge didn't jump. He kept saying this over and over again. I kept asking dumbfounded, "Don't you think it would have been better if the dispatcher had taken the call or done something?" He kept responding with the same answer, saying that it didn't matter what the dispatcher had done because she didn't jump. It was surprising to hear because it seemed to demonstrate a lack of care for how the job was done.
Unsatisfied with Sergeant Schicker's response, I asked him who else I might be able to speak with concerning the matter, and I was directed to speak with the person who manages all the dispatchers. She was very difficult to speak with. She was argumentative, telling me I actually didn't make the calls. Eventually, per my request, she listened to the recordings of the calls, called me back and apologized and explained that the dispatcher could have done just about anything that evening via their telephone system, and should have. She stated that it would be very reasonable to file a complaint regarding the matter.
After filing a complaint in August 2005 with the CPD, I was called in to go over the complaint by then Lieutenant Lawton, now Commander Lawton. He explained that while all the evidence was recorded from the telephone calls made, it was part of the procedure to interview all those involved. I went in and answered all his questions. He explained he was glad I took the time to file the complaint and took the time to come in, and that while I would not find out the specific outcome of the procedure, I would receive paperwork letting me know the process had been followed and completed. I believe he said it would take approximately 30 days to receive the paperwork, indicating a completion of the process.
I spoke with Officer Lawton on the telephone - in late fall 2005, in early spring 2006, in August of 2007, and again in February of 2008. Each time we addressed the issue of receiving no paperwork and every time Officer Lawton promised it would be done usually within 3 weeks of our conversation. While Officer Lawton was seemingly sincere during our meeting, none of what he said during or after our meeting regarding completing the paperwork turned out to be sincere or truthful. He never completed the complaint filing process, as he said he would, even after four phone conversations over a 3 year period in which he promised he would do so each time. On a side note, Officer Lawton repeatedly referred to the event as a "courtesy" issue and failed to describe it in any other terms, which to me means that the point was completely missed or was purposely regarded in a less critical manner. I explained that my feelings were not hurt, being hung up on, and that to me it had nothing to do with courtesy. It had everything to do with safety and policy. I think anyone who had a father, son, mother, daughter, sister, brother, or friend, (or as in my case, a stranger), walking up the Coronado Bridge, and having the call handled and regarded the way in which it was would not think it was a courtesy issue. To think someone, let alone the Commander, considers this a courtesy issue is shocking and worrisome.
Note well, I had called Dec. 10, 2007 to speak with the Chief of the CPD concerning the matter, and while I left a message for him to call me and a detailed explanation as to why I was calling with his receptionist, I never received any call back. (His receptionist had requested the reason for why I was calling to speak with the Chief). The first and only call I did receive was approximately 50 days later by Officer Lawton, asking why I had called the Chief. Again I explained fully that the complaint process didn't appear to be completed and that I had been waiting years for the paperwork regarding the complaint. Again, I was promised I would have the paperwork, (for the fourth time), that signified the completion of the complaint process within 3 weeks. Again, of course, I still received absolutely nothing. It was at this point that I began to follow up with the second complaint, a letter, which addressed the first complaint's handling.
In summation, you have the dispatcher refusing to handle the call. The officer in charge that evening saying it didn't matter how the call was handled. The dispatcher in charge initially denying the call was made. The Lieutenant, (now Commander), never completing the complaint filing process like he said he would, seemingly on purpose, even after 4 phone conversations, over 3 years and dismissing the event as a courtesy issue, and the Chief simply ignoring an inquiry concerning the issue and refusing to return the call.
I finally received the paperwork that finalized the
completion of the complaint in October 2009, more than 4 years after the initial event. (The envelope is postmarked Oct. 17, 2009). Officer Lawton alleged he had completed the paperwork in August 2007, (two years after the initial event), but he alleged that he forgot to send it. In our February 2008 phone conversation he made no mention of this whatsoever. If he had finished the paperwork regarding the formal complaint, wouldn't one think he would have mentioned it then or sent it at that time? Why did he state during that conversation that it would be up to three weeks to receive it, if it had already been completed?
As I had stated before, Commander Lawton regarded and referred to the issue as a "courtesy issue". In his July 2010 letter he confirmed this in writing when he wrote, "The investigation was sustained for discourteous treatment by the dispatcher...as well as neglect of duty by failing to notify you that other law enforcement personnel were responding to the information you provided". Commander Lawton's letter went on to show his lack of concern for the Sergeant's attitude, when he wrote, "The complaint against the Sergeant was not sustained as he provided you the information to contact the Dispatcher Supervisor". (Note well, I requested the information regarding speaking to someone else. The Sergeant didn't initiate the offering of this information).
Lastly, I have been driving for nearly 29 years. I have never received any kind of moving violation until after moving to Coronado in the year 2000. (I have never had any tickets erased via any means, i.e. taking a driving class). In the first 5 years of my living here I was stopped once by the CPD and given one speeding ticket for allegedly driving 75 mph on the strand. That ticket was dismissed. (Again the event, which didn't directly involve me took place in 2005, 5 years after moving to Coronado). In the following 5 years after filing of the formal complaint I was stopped or ticketed 8 times. Every ticket was dismissed.
One last note. When I filed the follow-up complaint, the format for complaints completely changed. I was never given any recognition of the second complaint until I followed up with a second letter. In the first complaint, a form was sent to fill out along with a letter that recognized the complaint. There was no form sent with the second complaint. I was never given a number that identified the complaint as an individual complaint. In the first complaint a number was given to identify the filing. I was never requested to sign and date a form regarding not filing false statements. The form had stated, "As of January 1, 1996, all persons filing a complaint against a California peace officer, must sign the following statement..." The statement is an entire page that requires the person making a complaint to state that the complaint they are making is true. There was no signature request for any form in the follow-up complaint. There was no request to meet. I was told the initial complaint required my presence even though all the information was on the recorded calls. It seems as though there is very little formality to the filing process now, and it seems as though it would be easy to simply toss out a complaint, as though it never existed. When there was some formality, as there was with the first, it seemed the CPD had plenty of problems in coping with it as is.
Finally, I shouldn't have had to write any complaint or have to explain the necessity of common sense, objectiveness, honesty and integrity in a position of leadership in the community, especially among those who will be judging others, and whose word is so important. It is truly disturbing the manner in which this simple event was handled. Among many things, it demonstrates an effort to evade, a complete lack of respect for the complaint process, a lack of common sense, but above all a lack of integrity and honesty amongst those who will be judging us.
Stuart Weems
Recent Comments